Podcast appearances and mentions of Tammy Morales

Mark Solomon might be a new name to you. But it’s time to get to know him if you live in Seattle. Because last month, he was appointed to fill the District 2 seat on the City Council. He’s taking over from Tammy Morales, who stepped down in January - two years before the end of her term. After five rounds of voting, Solomon beat out six other finalists for the seat. He will now represent an area spanning from the Chinatown-International District to Rainier Beach. Solomon has said that he won’t run for the District 2 position in this November’s election. So - why did he apply for this position? And what does he plan to do during his relatively short time in office? Guest:Interim District Two city Councilmember Mark Solomon Related Links: Seattle City Council taps SPD crime prevention coordinator to fill District 2 seat - KUOW Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our special guest this week is new Seattle City Council appointee Mark Solomon, who has vowed to serve as a "caretaker" for the District 2 position previously held by Tammy Morales, who resigned last year because of what she called bullying and gaslighting by her newly elected council colleagues. Solomon lost to Morales in 2019 and sought the citywide council seat that ultimately went to the person Morales defeated in 2023, Tanya Woo, making him the second person voters rejected in favor of Morales to be appointed by the current council.We talked about that, as well as issues ranging from the use of blast balls for crowd control (he supports it) to whether he'll vote to decrease neighborhood density in the comprehensive plan (he's ambivalent), to the concept of crime prevention through environmental design (he teaches classes on it and thinks it can help address problem areas like 12th and Jackson). Our editor is Quinn Waller.Send us a text! Note that we can only respond directly to emails realseattlenice@gmail.comThanks to Uncle Ike's pot shop for sponsoring this week's episode! If you want to advertise please contact us at realseattlenice@gmail.comSupport the showYour support on Patreon helps pay for editing, production, live events and the unique, hard-hitting local journalism and commentary you hear weekly on Seattle Nice.

20 people have put their hats in the ring to be appointed to replace Tammy Morales on the Seattle City Council following her surprise resignation late last year.  Today's member's-only special podcast takes a closer look at the 20 aspirants and the council politics driving the decision.    The council plans to pick a replacement on January 27th. Our editor is Quinn Waller.  Send us a text! Note that we can only respond directly to emails realseattlenice@gmail.comSupport the showYour support on Patreon helps pay for editing, production, live events and the unique, hard-hitting local journalism and commentary you hear weekly on Seattle Nice.

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the process and politics behind selecting an appointee for the soon-to-be-vacant District 2 seat on the City Council, a new plan to incentivize the building of more housing, selecting a new police chief, and more. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

Tammy Morales says the Seattle City Council is sliding toward "undemocratic behavior," Wallace Falls State Park remains closed, and we look at how social media can make or break a restaurant. It's our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Patricia Murphy. We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. Tap here to make a gift and keep Seattle Now in your feed. Got questions about local news or story ideas to share? We want to hear from you! Email us at seattlenow@kuow.org, leave us a voicemail at (206) 616-6746 or leave us feedback online.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Seattle City Council Member Tammy Morales is leaving her post. She announced last week she is resigning from the council.  Morales has represented Seattle's 2nd District, which includes Yesler Terrace, the CID, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley and Rainier Beach, since 2019.  Her last day in the seat will be January 6th.  It's a surprise decision considering Morales was re-elected to a four year term just last year. In a letter to her constituents, Morales leveled criticisms about at toxic environment on the council and the toll the job has taken on her personally over the past year - "For the last 11 months, this Council has eroded our checks and balances as a Legislative department and undermined my work as a policymaker." Guest: District 2 Seattle City Council Member Tammy Morales Relevant Links: Morales letter to her constituents City Councilmember Tammy Morales Will Leave the Council In January - Publicola   Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

4pm: Guest - Dominic Gates - Seattle Times // Boeing pauses surveillance plan to track employees at the office // Tammy Morales talks grudges and insults that led to her resignation // Man leaps onto polar bear about to maul his wife in driveway, cops say. ‘What a hero’

Bill Radke discusses the week's news with South Seattle Emerald's Lauryn Bray, Seattle Channel's Brian Callanan, and Earth Finance founder Reuven Carlyle.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tammy Morales to resign from Seattle City Council, SAM workers go on strike, and a candidate emerges to challenge City Attorney Ann Davison. It's our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Paige Browning. The transit project "Orca Wrapped" can be found here. We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. Tap here to make a gift and keep Seattle Now in your feed. Got questions about local news or story ideas to share? We want to hear from you! Email us at seattlenow@kuow.org, leave us a voicemail at (206) 616-6746 or leave us feedback online.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s Trending: Socialist Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales is stepping down because the council wasn’t radical enough. Amazon is being sued by Washington, D.C. for allegedly not expediting deliveries to two black neighborhoods. The Seattle area is slated to get its first El Pollo location. Voodoo Doughnuts is also opening up in Seattle. // Big Local: The Lynnwood City Council has approved a 52% property tax increase. An off-duty cop allegedly pointed their gun at another driver during a road rage incident. A Burien animal shelter is stretched thin due to rising operating costs and recently rescuing 18 dogs. // A UK band was robbed at gunpoint in California on its first day on tour in the United States.  

6pm: Tammy Morales resigning from Seattle City Council // In 2020, Tammy couldn’t understand why looting bothered people so much // Lynnwood adopts city budget with a 52% property tax increase // The Owls are coming for you dogs in Ballard // John’s Owl Attack Story // Very mediocre Mexican fast-food chain coming to the PNW makes big news // Village People's Victor Willis defends Donald Trump's use of 'YMCA,' insists song isn't a gay anthem // Feliks is putting the finishing on his Holiday Play // Feliks: “Please ask Curly what his character’s motivation and backstory is for me.” // Did the World Need a Hot Santa? It Got One Anyway. 

3pm: Tammy Morales resigning from Seattle City Council // In 2020, Tammy couldn’t understand why looting bothered people so much // Lynnwood adopts city budget with a 52% property tax increase // The Owls are coming for you dogs in Ballard // John’s Owl Attack Story // Very mediocre Mexican fast-food chain coming to the PNW makes big news // Village People's Victor Willis defends Donald Trump's use of 'YMCA,' insists song isn't a gay anthem // Feliks is putting the finishing on his Holiday Play // Feliks: “Please ask Curly what his character’s motivation and backstory is for me.” // Did the World Need a Hot Santa? It Got One Anyway. 

5pm: Tammy Morales resigning from Seattle City Council // In 2020, Tammy couldn’t understand why looting bothered people so much // Voodoo Donuts Seattle location to open next week // Tina Trahan - Owner of The Brady House // Letters 

Today, there was a surprise announcement from Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales. After 5 years on the council, Morales, the representative for the 2nd District, said she is resigning, effective January 6th. KUOW Investigative reporter Ashley Hiruko gives us some insight into the decision and the council. Guest: Ashley Hiruko, KUOW Investigative Reporter Related Links: KUOW - Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales steps down, citing harmful work environment Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tammy Morales has announced she's quitting the city council in January. She accused some colleagues of treating her very poorly and also told Erica she sees no point in continuing because she can't make any progress whatsoever passing progressive legislation with the current, more centrist council.  Is the current council toxic? Is Morales right to quit? Is she abandoning her progressives allies? We take a closer look at these questions, and speculate on the fallout from the move in 2025.  As our regular listeners might expect, Erica sides with Morales, Sandeep is less sympathetic, and David questions the consistency of both. Our editor is Quinn Waller. Send us a text! Note that we can only respond directly to emails realseattlenice@gmail.comThanks to Uncle Ike's pot shop for sponsoring this week's episode! If you want to advertise please contact us at realseattlenice@gmail.comSupport the showYour support on Patreon helps pay for editing, production, live events and the unique, hard-hitting local journalism and commentary you hear weekly on Seattle Nice.

URSULA'S TOP STORIES: Tammy Morales resigning // Property taxes going up in Lynnwood // State budget shortfall // Your musical year in review // WE NEED TO TALK. . . About online shopping

Seattle Nice was on our best behavior this week because had company—Scott Greenstone, a politics reporter at KUOW radio and host of the new KUOW podcast Sound Politics! We discussed the statewide election results (Scott reported that the vibe at Republican gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird's party was weirdly "optimistic") and the race to replace Frank Chopp as 43rd District state rep, where Chopp-endorsed Shaun Scott ended the night with more than twice as many votes as We Heart Seattle founder Andrea Suarez, whom even the Seattle Times didn't endorse.And, of course, we talked about Seattle's only local election—the race for City Council Position 8, where incumbent Tanya Woo was trailing challenger Alexis Mercedes Rinck by a wide margin on Election Night. (The gap has only widened since then). Woo, who was appointed to the citywide seat after losing last year's District 2 race to incumbent Tammy Morales, is on shaky ground going into the general election.Support the Show.Support us on Patreon!

What’s Trending: Socialist Seattle City Council member Tammy Morales is criticizing Mayor Bruce Harrell for his plan to create more jail beds. The IDF carried out strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon in response to the terrorist group’s attack on a children’s soccer field. //LongForm: GUEST: Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Eric Eisinger is sounding the alarms about public defender standards. // The Quick Hit: Kamala Harris said she will attend the ABC debate whether or not Trump does.  

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the unusual committee-level rejection of some affordable housing legislation, a new plan to prevent fires in vacant buildings, the unveiling of a citywide Transportation Plan, a possible extension of the Multifamily Tax Exemption program, and an answer for one of our patron's questions, too. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

Learn about the latest in local public affairs in about the time it takes for a coffee break! Brian Callanan of Seattle Channel and David Kroman of the Seattle Times discuss the launch of public comments on Seattle's Comprehensive Plan, another expansion of the Seattle Preschool Program, new land use legislation from Councilmember Tammy Morales, prioritizing where sidewalks are built in Seattle, and new concerns arising for the city's Municipal Court. If you like this podcast, please support it on Patreon!

What’s Trending: Councilmember Tammy Morales apparently did not know that Kias are being stolen and used in crimes. An abandoned pit-bull that was originally planned to be euthanized was rescued by the Tukwila PD and trained him to help in the K-9 unit. A man walking past a U-district homelessness camp was shot. California Governor, Gavin Newsom, tells a story about a target employee blaming him for the rise in thefts. // Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is sending National Guard troops to help out at the southern border. NYC Mayor Adams says we need to start deporting criminal migrants. An illegal migrant who was charged with attacking NYPD flips off the camera. // Anti graffiti enforcement will commence in Seattle again. Thieves steal $70, 000 worth of tools from Bowers Plumbing and Remodel work van. 

What's Trending: The group of migrants to Seattle seeking asylum marched on Seattle City Hall for help with housing and employment with the support of Tammy Morales, bystanders and a retired police officer stop a robbery at a Safeway in Federal Way, and a group of city councilmembers from across the US is calling for Hyundai and Kia to recall certain theft-prone models. // Social media CEOs from Meta, Discord and others are getting grilled by the US senate for not taking certain measures to protect kids on their platforms. // A new bill in the Washington Senate would require gun owners to carry liability insurance.  

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman! Crystal and Daniel discuss the unsurprising Seattle City Council vacancy appointment and what we might see from a business-backed, Harrell-picked legislative body as they navigate a hiring freeze, a large budget deficit, and upcoming important policy decisions. Next, they turn to the Office of Police Accountability's conclusion that SPOG Vice President Auderer's comments about Jaahnavi Kandula's death were “​​derogatory, contemptuous, and inhumane” and speculate how Chief Diaz and Mayor Harrell will handle disciplinary action. The conversation then covers Daniel's recent story about a Snohomish County school's travails with a neighboring gravel yard and seemingly unconcerned local government. Finally, in the wake of the City of Seattle settling with 2020 protesters for $10 million, Crystal and Daniel wonder whether there will be any meaningful change in how the Seattle Police Department responds to protests. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Daniel Beekman, at @DBeekman.   Resources The Raise the Wage Renton Campaign with Maria Abando and Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera from Hacks & Wonks   “In "Foregone Conclusion," Council Appoints Tanya Woo to Citywide Position” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Total Corporate Takeover of Council Now Complete” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Harrell Issues Hiring Freeze as New Council Members Vow to "Audit the Budget"” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “SPD cop's comments on Jaahnavi Kandula's death were ‘inhumane,' biased, watchdogs say” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   “Snohomish County school seeks relief from gravel yard sited next door” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   “City of Seattle settles BLM protesters' lawsuit for $10 million” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Renton City Councilmember Carmen Rivera and Raise the Wage Renton Steering Committee member Maria Abando to learn more about the citizen initiative to raise Renton's minimum wage. Ballots got mailed out this week, so keep an eye on that and make sure all your friends and family in Renton vote by February 13th. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman. [00:01:28] Daniel Beekman: Thanks for having me on. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, there is a good amount of news to discuss this week. Starting off, Seattle got a new councilmember. Tanya Woo was appointed by the council to fill the vacancy created by Teresa Mosqueda's election to the King County Council. What was the lead up? What happened here? How did this happen? [00:01:53] Daniel Beekman: Well, it was an interesting situation where so soon after actual elections, we had this appointment process for the City Council because Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda jumped to the King County Council in the same election that elected an almost all-new Seattle City Council, so there's some kind of whiplash there with so much change so quickly. And we saw the new-look City Council appoint someone who narrowly lost in November, which was interesting to see. They sort of had an option of, in theory, choosing someone who fit the profile politically of Teresa Mosqueda, the outgoing councilmember, to fill that citywide seat, or of choosing someone who had just run, or going a whole other direction. And there was a lot of politicking ahead of the appointment. And I think that the new City Council President Sara Nelson said we're not doing anything else until we have this appointment. So we're not going to get down to actual business, which to some extent makes some sense in that you want to sort of have everything set before you start doing the work. On the other hand, it sort of laid down a marker of - this is our first new thing that we're doing as a city council. It's going to be significant, which it is - choosing someone to represent the whole city, at least until November, late November when the election results get certified. But yeah, it was interesting. What did you make of it? Were you surprised that they picked Tanya Woo? [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: I was not surprised at all. In fact, this seemed like it was a foregone conclusion for quite some time. Part of this was telegraphed publicly - it looks like with about a week before, there was a letter from Tim Ceis - who was a former consultant to Bruce Harrell, may currently be a consultant to Bruce Harrell, and business lobbyist - who had sent a letter to some of his allies talking about their success with the independent expenditure effort, referring to the money that they spent in support of electing candidates in this last election in Seattle, which was very successful for them. And saying that they had the right to voice their opinion and state that they wanted Tanya Woo picked. They named her by name and said - She is our person, you should pick her. Also telegraphed from a prior meeting where they narrowed down and selected the finalists where several councilmembers from the dais said - Since someone else already picked Tanya Woo, I'll go with a different person. So it looked like she was the favorite anyway. I think that the relationship that had been established between them was clear. They were all similarly ideologically aligned. They spent a lot of time together during the campaign trail. But as you said, it was a controversial pick because Tanya Woo was just unsuccessful in that election and just lost to Tammy Morales. And so having a portion of the City opt not to have Tanya Woo represent them to vote for Tammy Morales - and I personally am not someone who feels that someone who lost an election should never be appointed, but I do think that the will of the voters does make a difference here. If Tanya would have had similar ideological preferences to Tammy Morales and lost, you could say - Well, they're saying similar things. The voters seem like they would be fine, too. They didn't just reject this. This seems like it could be a pick that does represent what Seattle residents feel best represents them. This is not that case, and so we will see how this turns out. But there's been a shift in ideology on the council now. Interestingly with this, it's not like even if they didn't go with Tanya Woo, the majority of the council wouldn't still be in the same place. But this provides almost an extra insurance vote for them, as they consider the things that are facing the city, whether it's a budget deficit - Sara Nelson already signaling a desire to cut business taxes. They're going through an audit - they're saying right now - with the City and seeing where they can cut spending basically to address this $250+ million dollar deficit that's coming up that may be even bigger because they're also signaling that they want to further increase the police budget. So we'll see how this turns out, but it's going to be really interesting to see them negotiate the challenges that are facing them. What do you think this sets up for the council over the year? [00:06:23] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, it was interesting. I haven't been the reporter covering most of this in the last couple of weeks for us. And going forward, it'll be my coworker, David Kroman, who is doing a great job and will do a great job. But I did just dip in for a minute when the new councilmembers were sworn in - This was early this month. And I remember that Councilmember Tammy Morales made it a point in that swearing in, getting started meeting - and talking about this appointment that they had to make - of mentioning some of the big ticket items and running down the list of what this year might look like. And it was striking to think about what they have coming up. There's a Comprehensive Plan update due by the end of this year, which sounds kind of wonky, but is important. It's basically redefining the growth strategy for the city for the next 20 years. There's a transportation property tax levy up for renewal. There's this potential budget gap that you mentioned. And there's the issue of the contract for the police officers union due. So those are some big ticket things all in this year. And I think it may be the budget, like you were mentioning, that turns out to be the one that's the hottest politically with this new group and where you sort of see the imprint of the new politics to the extent that it is a shift. But I'm sure other things will crop up as they always do. [00:07:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to pay attention to what happens with this council. Also, because this has been an appointment, this person who did get appointed has to stand for election in the very next election - they don't serve the full term after an appointment. So this seat will be on the ballot in November 2024. So that is going to be an interesting dynamic. Robert Cruidkshank talked about last week - this is going to be interesting to see. Given how there was controversy surrounding this appointment, how is that going to impact Tanya Woo, who is assumed to be running for this seat? And how many other people we see who applied for this appointment are also going to be on the ballot? Is anyone new going to be there? So certainly a lot to pay attention to politically here. [00:08:40] Daniel Beekman: I was just curious to know what you thought about that, because I listened to what Robert was saying, listened to your show last week with him - and I think he was saying that he thought the new guard on the City Council is maybe overestimating their political momentum. And that the way this appointment process happened with Tanya Woo being backed by the independent expenditure sort of business types, there could be a backlash in November, which I could kind of imagine in the sense that people don't love the idea of behind the scenes - big business picking their leaders. And it's in a presidential election year, so that could factor into things. But also Councilmember Woo now obviously has support and name recognition and all that and will benefit from being there at City Hall. And support not just from business leaders, obviously. And so I'm curious to know what you think - I understand where he was coming from when he was making that backlash prediction, but I'm not so sure about it. What do you expect? Do you think it'll hurt or help her or what? [00:09:46] Crystal Fincher: It could hurt. The potential is there. And it really depends on how things play out, I think, with the budget, primarily - with some of the real visible issues that they're going to be dealing with this year. I do think that it was notable and novel to have Tim Ceis send out that letter. Now, I don't think that penetrated immediately to the general public. I don't think 80% of people are aware that Tim Ceis sent any communication, or who Tim Ceis is realistically. Kind of same with how many people are really paying attention to the City Council right now. But as you hear these things being talked about, they do know that Tanya Woo lost. And this did make broad news - people are getting news alerts about it. And it's a name that they wouldn't expect to be there. So it's kind of like - Huh, that's different. And didn't she just lose? - which I think is an odd thing. I do think that there has been a - you could characterize it as brazen - that business has a big voice here and that there is a close alignment. And whether or not you view it as them being in the pocket or being a puppet of big business, or that they're just aligned and view it as an extremely important constituency that they're prioritizing that there does seem to be a much closer alignment there. And Seattle voters have explicitly rejected that before. They are uncomfortable when it comes to corporate control. Seattle residents are taxing themselves to institute a small property tax for the Democracy Voucher program. And I really do agree with Robert's point about Seattle voters being uncomfortable with austerity - cutting services is just not what Seattle residents are necessarily comfortable with. And Seattle, to a greater degree than just about any other city in this state, prioritizes services for its residents - those that cost - and they want library services, they want housing provided, they want these different things. Now they want action and they want to see improvement on the ground on these issues, but they don't expect an absence of these services or - Okay, we're just wholesale slashing programs and services that you've been used to and that Seattle is known for providing. So I do think that a number of these issues would be easier for them to run on, for them to implement had they mentioned that while they were running for election. But I think the other complication is while they were campaigning, they bent over backwards - these candidates that won, for the most part - to not talk about - Okay, there's a big budget deficit. What would you cut if you're not going to raise revenue? Where do you find revenue to provide more money for more police? And that's a conversation that many of them didn't want to have. I think Bob Kettle was probably the one who most explicitly talked about that. A few just didn't. A few threw out ideas like - Well, we need to find out what's happening with the City. But there wasn't anyone who said - You know what, we are going to be cutting programs. We are going to be cutting services. We are going to be providing business tax breaks. Not one said that one. So that's going to be interesting to see - in a deficit, when they're cutting services for residents and then seeing tax breaks for businesses, how that's going to fly. [00:13:02] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think that it's not surprising or out of bounds for the new councilmembers and the new council president to feel like they have a kind of mandate. And I think voters can feel to some extent like they were installed in office being business-friendly candidates, and the voters knew that - that's not a total surprise. And I think it's understandable that they would say - OK, well, we got put here, this is who we are, and we're going to try to do what we want to do. We'll have to see how the budget actually plays out and the deficit, because there can be updated forecasts and new money comes in - and it's hard to know what that will look like. But I do think what you mentioned about - if there start being cuts to libraries, that might not be a politically savvy thing in Seattle - hands off our library. So I think to that extent, that's where the rubber could meet the road to see how much political juice folks have, if that's the direction it goes. I can see both angles here. [00:14:05] Crystal Fincher: A lot is still up the air. Interestingly, it wasn't a unanimous vote by the council. One or two votes for this appointment - Joy Hollingsworth, Tammy Morales, and one other councilmember - [00:14:18] Daniel Beekman: Dan Strauss. [00:14:19] Crystal Fincher: Dan Strauss, that's right - did not have Tanya Woo as their choice. So there was some difference. So we'll see how these alliances play out. Even though there are ideological differences, councilmembers may still find things that they share, issues that they want to pursue - maybe on not the big headline issues, but other ones. And how those relationships build and progress - maybe that can provide some hope for how things play out with the City. Also, speaking of the budget, Mayor Bruce Harrell just announced a hiring freeze. As the new council sets out on their quest to audit the budget, Harrell instituted a hiring freeze across all City departments except police, fire and the 911 response division known as the CARE Department. PubliCola covered this - everybody covered this - but this is going to be a significant freeze. Certainly not the first freeze. Hiring freezes are not unprecedented - in fact, with big budget deficits, we have seen this before. It'll be interesting to see how this results and how much money this could potentially save. What do you see? Do you think a hiring freeze makes sense at this point in time? [00:15:30] Daniel Beekman: I wouldn't weigh in on whether it makes sense or not. It's interesting to see. And obviously, the idea is that we'll save some money leading into the budget season and maybe make some decisions easier, or get rid of some of the hard decisions that might otherwise be there. But also, it's a political signal - I would assume - to say, this is the situation we're in. This is really serious, and we're going to have to make some tough calls coming down the line. And the idea of exempting these public safety positions from that also sends a signal. Again - hiring freeze is one thing, cutting services is another thing - and if it starts to blur into cutting as the year goes on, then that's where you could imagine the average voter starting to get concerned. So it'll be interesting to see how it evolves and also how the relationship between the mayor and this new city council evolves too on something like this, as councilmembers get pressure from various advocacy groups or stakeholders with the budget - and employees - and as the mayor does too. Do they work in lockstep together - the mayor and the council, or the council majority to the extent that there is a clear one - or do they start playing off each other. I'm really curious to see how Mayor Harrell handles the new council - does he see himself as the leader, or is he going to play off what they're doing and position himself as different from whatever tack they're taking. And this hiring freeze and how it continues to play out could start to show what that relationship might be, I think. [00:17:09] Crystal Fincher: That is going to be interesting to watch. This hiring freeze was not a surprise to me. Again, it's not unprecedented. The City is facing a very serious budget deficit with some major structural issues. Over the years, there have been several short-term, or shorter-term, sources of funds that have been used to plug holes, get us through some challenging times - and that's all coming to roost now. There are several needs for permanent funding that don't currently have permanent funding sources attached. Also, it's going to be interesting to see what they end up doing with the JumpStart Tax and the revenues from that. That certainly has been dedicated to a number of issues that have provided some very important services to people who need housing assistance, small business assistance, eviction assistance - just really plugging some of the real critical gaps for folks and businesses in the city. But this is being eyed as a source of revenue for some of the other priorities or things that they're looking to shift to. And they have signaled that that may be a source of revenue that they look to divert or repurpose. And you're right - how the relationship develops between the mayor and council is going to be interesting to watch, especially since Bruce Harrell played a big role in recruiting and helping to elect these councilmembers - the majority who were elected, the new ones. He had talked about for a while, other people had talked about - Well, there needs to be more alignment between the mayor and council to get things done. Bruce talked about he wanted a council that would partner with him and that was loyal to him, really. And he has that now. And so from that perspective - okay, the barriers that you said that you had to being able to move forward on the priorities that you've set forth have seemingly been removed. So now we can expect to see, or we should expect to see, action on some of the priorities that have seemingly lagged or that there hasn't been as much progress on over the past two years since he took office. So it's going to be interesting to see what they set as an agenda, how aggressive they are with addressing priorities that residents have had when it comes to public safety - making everyone safer in the city, which they are taking steps to do. And some of the things that they've talked about with the CARE Department that is now rolling out a co-response kind of partial model for some mental health calls. Tammy Morales did make a point in some of her remarks to remind the colleagues that Bruce Harrell is not their boss. They don't work for him. They are partners with him. He's a colleague. He isn't a superior. And so it'll be interesting to see if - on the flip side, they view themselves as a check to some things that may come out of the mayor's office. We'll see how that turns out. It looks like there is broad alignment right now and a culture of positivity that they're trying to enforce - wanting to not have any negative comments, to get along and be really collegial. And we'll see if that results in some significant progress on homelessness, on public safety, on economic development, on just help for the people who need it most in the city. [00:20:25] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think you're right that - in terms of the mayor, he's halfway through his term now and now has this friendly city council. So yeah, you would think that now would be the time to do the things that he promised to do on the campaign trail and that people want to see City Hall accomplish. So what are those things? It'll be interesting to see what comes out of his office this year. Is it just going to be taking care of those must-dos? We talked about the Comp Plan and Transportation Levy renewal and the budget. Or is there something more proactive that's going to come from his office on housing and homelessness? The voters just passed a new Housing Levy last year. But yeah, what's going to come out of his office - if anything - that's a big ticket item this year now that, like you said, in theory, there shouldn't be any barriers to him getting done what he wants to get done. [00:21:18] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I also want to talk about news this week about the comment that we heard from an SPD police officer mocking, really, Jaahnavi Kandula's death - she was killed by a police officer who was responding to a call - killed in a crosswalk, hit by his cruiser while he was driving it. And those comments made international news for how just grotesque and callous they were. I don't think anyone, besides perhaps the police union, is arguing that they weren't absolutely detestable. But it's been quite some time, but there was just an Office of Police Accountability finding at a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday where they found that the vice president of Seattle's police union acted unprofessionally and showed bias when he made callous comments downplaying the death of Jaahnavi Kandula. What did you think of this finding and this incident? [00:22:24] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, well, I don't think it's surprising that the watchdog agency, the OPA, would come down with this finding, although I don't think they released what their recommendations for discipline were - it just goes, they sent it to the police chief, Adrian Diaz, for him to decide whether he wants to concur with those unknown recommendations for discipline or he has to justify doing something else. So yeah, I don't think it's surprising that the OPA would come down on it this way, given what their role is as a watchdog agency and given what happened and all the uproar locally, nationally, internationally. I think the big question is what the police chief is going to do and what the mayor, his boss, is going to do. It seems like a major moment for, again - what is the relationship between the mayor and the police chief and the police union? We'll be waiting to see what happens. And a little bit interested that - I could imagine a world in which the police chief and the mayor, knowing that this recommendation was coming down from the OPA, would get their ducks in a row. Let's say, if they were sure they were going to concur - this is kind of speculation - but if they were sure they were going to concur with the recommendations and kind of be ready right away to say - Yes, we agree with this and here's the action we're taking now, boom. And the fact that that didn't happen concurrently with this coming out from the OPA and that the police chief apparently is taking time to take a look at it is interesting. And then, of course, there's the ongoing investigation into the incident itself and the officer who was involved in the fatal collision. So that's a whole other thing that's still waiting out there as well, and whether he - what kind of consequences he might face. [00:24:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think that's where the rubber is really going to hit the road here is - so what are you going to do about it? And like you said, the OPA investigator did not make his finding public. The police chief will have to decide whether he's going to fire this officer, whether he's going to discipline him in any way. But that's going to be really interesting to see, especially in an environment where they are really supportive of police - they do have plans to hire more officers - they are trying to signal it's a new day in our relationship with the police department. At the same time, the mayor has at least given lip service - and I think some of the other new councilmembers have - saying that, But we do want to take accountability seriously. This looks to be perhaps their first test of this under the new council. And especially with something that there doesn't seem to be much ambiguity on where the general public is on this - it is pretty detestable. And even in the findings from the OPA director, it was pretty stark what they said. They said his comments were "derogatory, contemptuous, and inhumane" - that's a quote from Betts' summary. Said - "For many, it confirmed, fairly or not, beliefs that some officers devalue and conceal perverse views about community members." This is not something where it's anywhere close to acceptable. It said the investigators concluded that his comments did in fact violate SPD policies - that the department prohibits behavior that undermines public trust, including any language that is derogatory, contentious, or disrespectful towards any person. The policy also prohibits prejudicial or derogatory language about someone's discernible personal characteristics, such as age. They directly violated those, and at a time where I think everyone acknowledges there needs to be trust rebuilt between the police department and the community - that those are really serious violations. And if we're serious about creating a culture that is different than this, then can this remain in the police department? So a decision coming up that hopefully - I certainly would hope - that they find this is not compatible with the police department or its culture. But we'll see how this turns out. [00:26:33] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and I guess what raises the stakes - and of course the stakes are so high for the family involved and all of that. But what also raises the stakes here for the city is that this isn't just any police officer, but this person is vice president in the police officers' union, SPOG, and the guild. So right up at the top of the officer hierarchy and embedded in the culture of the force. [00:27:01] Crystal Fincher: Now, I do want to talk about a story that you wrote this week that I think is really important to cover. It's about a school in Snohomish County seeking some relief from a gravel yard sited next door. What is happening here and who's being impacted? [00:27:20] Daniel Beekman: Sure. This is an interesting one. So basically what's happening - this is an elementary school in the Mukilteo School District, but it's not in the city of Mukilteo. It's in this wedge of unincorporated Snohomish County between South Everett and Mukilteo. And next door on the same campus is a big kindergarten center that serves as the kindergarten for a larger area - so there's maybe close to a thousand kids on this campus. And there's this piece of property right next door to the school, closest to the south wing of the school - and some portables and the asphalt playground - that was a vacant lot until a couple of years ago. A company bought it that's involved in mining and gravel and sand and other construction materials with a mine up in, I think, Granite Falls, Snohomish County. And they bought this property to use as basically a gravel yard, sort of a distribution hub. So they'll bring stuff down from the mine and put it in piles there with big trucks. And then trucks will come get the material to take out to job sites. And for at least a while, they're also using it to bring in, I believe, construction debris from job sites and then to be taken elsewhere. And especially starting last spring, the school started noticing - at first, they said they didn't get any word about what this was or that this was happening in advance - they just saw construction activity happening on this property. And then last spring started realizing - Well, this is a permanent thing. They're not building something. This is just what it is. And it's going to be like this for the foreseeable future. And they say they've been dealing with dust from these materials and with lots of noise from the trucks rumbling around and the construction vehicles' buckets slamming against the sides of the trucks as they're unloading and loading. They say it's really disruptive to classes - some of the classes, especially closest to the property - and also they're concerned about health impacts in terms of the dust. It's hard for them to know exactly what to attribute or not attribute to the dust, but they've talked about more bloody noses and black snot and headaches and stomachaches among students and teachers. So that's kind of what's going on. And where government comes in is that it turns out that this gravel yard operation hasn't had any permits since the start. And there were some complaints filed last spring about this, and the county basically has taken the stance of - Yeah, they don't have any permits. There was some kind of mix up, perhaps, but we're going to work with them to bring them into compliance. What they're doing is, in theory, allowed under the zoning of this property. So yes, they need permits and they need to do various things to get those. But we're going to give them time to do that and work with them to do that to see if they can. And the school district and people at this school are saying - Why are you continuing to allow them to operate when we say it's disruptive to our classes and our kids learning, especially if they don't have the permits? So that's what I wrote about. It's a weird situation. To the bigger picture about why it matters - obviously, it matters to the kids and the teachers there. But the bigger picture - there's a question about priorities of Snohomish County government that's being raised. Even one teacher wrote in a letter to the county council something along the lines of - what's worth more, kids or dirt? So there's sort of a question of priorities there and what the handling of the situation says about those. And then also - what I found interesting was the principal and others raising a question of environmental justice or equity and saying - Look, this school, it's on unincorporated land. There isn't a city hall to look out for us in this case. The school serves - I think, about 70% of the students qualify for free lunch, about half are multilingual learners, which means they speak a language other than English at home. There are a lot of immigrant and refugee kids. And the principal just said straight up - If this was happening in different neighborhoods or with a different demographic of students, I don't think the powers that be would be putting up with it. So that's the story, and we're going to keep following it and see what happens. [00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: This was disappointing for me to read - just because that did seem to come through. It does seem to be a question of priority. When you talk about bloody noses, stomachaches, headaches, black snot - I mean, that is alarming to think of as a parent. If you see that going on with your kid, you know something's wrong. If you see that happening with your students and it wasn't previously happening, you know something's wrong. Again, like you said, it's hard to know exactly how to attribute it. But if this is a newer occurrence, you're going to ask questions and want a remedy. I think in the story you talk about - they can see the dust and there have been studies recently talking about how harmful particulate matter can be for developing lungs and hearts and brains - and for everyone, kids and teachers there. It's a big challenge. And for this to be happening suddenly - no notice, not current or appropriate permits for what they're doing - and the remedy to be, Well, we'll just let them keep doing it. Who knows what's going on at the school and we'll work with them to make sure they get up to code so they can keep doing this, instead of working to ensure that the kids are safe just seems backward. And it really does stand in contrast with so many other issues that we see people talk about when it comes to keeping kids safe, keeping schools safe. We restrict several activities around schools - really common ones are you can't have guns in school zones, you can't have any weapons, you can't have alcohol - that kind of stuff. We restrict, and some cities have sought to restrict, whether homeless people can be in vicinities of schools - which I personally think is misguided, but there have been cities that have done that. And so why is it so important to keep kids safe in those situations, but not this one? Why is it in this particular situation that the health of these kids doesn't matter? And not just the health impacts, but that this has been very disruptive to their learning - they've had to restructure their days. Extremely loud and disruptive, which studies have shown does impact, does hinder learning. So why is this allowed to continue unpermitted without any kind of approval or exploration about whether this is an appropriate and compatible use? I do hope the Snohomish County government does better. I hope they engage more actively in this. I hope that they do track down what is happening with these kids and that they are able to mitigate this. But it does seem like these stories often go unreported, so appreciate you servicing this. We're used to hearing - we think of a place like Magnolia or Laurelhurst and how much process there is around anything new that happens. And that this is allowed to just up and happen in a different area, in a poorer area, just seems really disappointing and a reflection on priorities that need to change. Also want to talk this week about the City of Seattle settling with Black Lives Matter protesters from 2020 for $10 million. What happened under this settlement? [00:35:09] Daniel Beekman: Well, the City Attorney's office in the city made a calculation and said - We're going to cut our losses here, in terms of the money that we're spending on the case and the money that we could end up paying at the end of it if we continue. And that's what they do is - they make a calculation, and they negotiate - and say $10 million is what it's going to take to make this case go away, but we might have to pay more if we continue. And it wasn't a case where the City said - And we're admitting fault. Sometimes - I think rarely - but sometimes the city, public entity will say something like that with a settlement. That wasn't the case here. They said this is a straight up calculation of risk for tax dollars and that's why we're settling this case. But that's what happened. And it's the latest in a now pretty long series of settlements of lawsuits related in one way or another to the May, June, July 2020 timeframe. And it will be interesting, actually, to try to tally them all up and see what the final number would be. But this is, I think, the biggest - but there have been a whole bunch of settlements in the six-figures and over a million dollars related to the protest summer of 2020. I think there still is some litigation hanging out there, so we may continue to see more. And I don't know how much closure this will bring to the city and to the plaintiffs involved here from this time, but definitely a big settlement. [00:36:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is already - as you said, City Attorney Ann Davison reiterated the City was not admitting any fault here. This lawsuit was filed about three years ago, has already cost the City in defense and expert witness fees. Among the plaintiffs were a woman who had a heart attack when she was struck in the chest by an SPD blast ball, and a man who was hospitalized in a coma after his arrest, a veteran who uses a cane and was gassed and tackled because he didn't retreat fast enough - because the cane was viewed as a weapon - there were lots. The police indiscriminately fired tear gas and blast balls in this neighborhood - not only impacting protesters, but also impacting the entire neighborhood. There were people who were just in their homes who were impacted. by this. It was quite a significant event. Even though the City did not admit any fault, there was a finding by a federal judge saying officers had used excessive force and had violated the free speech rights of thousands of residents who were legally gathered. It really was a stain on the police department - another thing that most people looked at and said, This is not right. This should not happen. This is a violation of trust, and really just harmful to residents in the city. Police are supposed to be there, philosophically, to protect people. And seemingly the opposite happened here. The attorney for the plaintiffs, along with some of the plaintiffs, did have a press conference yesterday and said - Hey, the City's not admitting fault, but they really should be. And there was so much that was troubling that happened here. The attorney cited other incidents, including a hoax perpetrated by the department to scare protesters into thinking armed members of the Proud Boys extremist group were in the area. The City hired an expert, University of Liverpool Professor Clifford Stott, who's among the world's foremost crowd policing experts. And I thought this was pretty jaw-dropping - Stott reportedly concluded that, particularly during the early days of Seattle's protests, he had not seen the level of violent aggression by police against unarmed protesters "in any democratic state." That's just a pretty stark, horrible conclusion - saying that this doesn't happen in democracies. We don't see this kind of reaction in free societies. And so this is a really significant payout. And once again, we're seeing a large payout because of police violations and misconduct. We're now seeing this happen while we're hearing - There's not much money to go around. We're trying to figure out what to do with the shortfall, yet we're still paying out this extra money. And it just seems like this should be a signal that - Hey, there is a reckoning that needs to happen within the department, within the city that perhaps hasn't happened yet. And maybe the insistence that - Hey, there's no fault here seems a bit out of touch. How did you see this? [00:39:56] Daniel Beekman: I'm not sure about the admitting wrongdoing aspect of it and what reasoning is behind that decision. But I think a bigger picture question is - okay, so there's this big payout for the plaintiffs. It's a headline. It's meaningful in those ways. But the bigger question is - okay, well, if something happens and there are big protests - what if a decision comes down that people don't like in that other case we were talking about, the fatal collision? And there are protests on the street and the police department is sent out to handle those protests. Are we going to see the same thing happen again? That's the real question, right - is what's been put in place in regulation and policy and law and culture to ensure that things are done the right way the next time? And I think there's an open question about would things be different again, or not? So I think that's the thing that it would be helpful to hear from policymakers and from City leaders on. The look back is important, but there's that question of - what about next time? What do you think about that? [00:41:14] Crystal Fincher: No, I think you're exactly right. I personally would love to hear from the police chief, from the mayor - who are directly responsible for the police department - what about next time? I think that's the right question to ask and what they should be asking themselves. What is going to change? How have we responded to this? Have policies changed in response to this? Has training changed? Has any guidance changed? Have they responded to this with any criticisms, with any - Hey, I would like this to change. This is under their purview. This is under their control. So how are they asserting their leadership? How are they affirmatively trying to shape this culture? Or are they just kind of taking a hands-off policy and hoping this doesn't happen again? - Hey, we'll deal with something if it directly lands in our lap, like we need to make a disciplinary decision on the one case that we talked about earlier that you just referenced. But when it comes to culture, when it comes to how things are looking moving forward - what is their vision for that? What are they setting forth? How are they leading? It's their responsibility. How are they handling that responsibility? Are they handling that responsibility? And I think residents are interested to hear that. They want to know that there are plans in place and that there is a response. Or are we setting ourselves up again for harm against residents of this city, and lawsuits that drag on that are really expensive - that take time and money? And here we go again. So I do hope they address that. And maybe, this new council can help prompt some of those questions - maybe as these conversations take place and as there are more press conferences, we can hear more about that, hopefully. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 26th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Times politics and communities reporter, Daniel Beekman. You can find Daniel on X, also known as Twitter, at @DBeekman. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter - all platforms - at @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn! Crystal and Lex dive into the new year's headlines with a debate over Space Needle NYE drone shows vs fireworks, a rundown of new Washington state laws taking effect, and a discussion of why it's important to look past a poll's summary headline. They then chat about the new Seattle City Council taking office, a lawsuit against the City of Burien over its homeless camping law, and a new entrant into the Attorney General's race. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Lex Vaughn at @AlexaVaughn.   Resources RE-AIR: Ending Youth Incarceration with Dr. Ben Danielson of AHSHAY Center from Hacks & Wonks   “The new Washington state laws taking effect in January 2024” by Laurel Demkovich from Washington State Standard   “Poll: Washington voters want to spend more — while cutting taxes” by Donna Gordon Blankinship from Crosscut   Crosscut - Elway Poll | 2024 Legislative Preview    “Tammy Morales, Rob Saka To Chair Key Council Committees During Pivotal Year” by Ryan Packer and Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Seattle politics shift as City Council gets new members, president” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   “New City Council Elects Former Conservative Outcast as President” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Council Vacancy | Office of the City Clerk   “Unhoused people sue Burien over new homeless camping law” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “Update: Eastern WA attorney who fought gun laws, COVID mandates plans run for state AG” by Eric Rosane from Tri-City Herald   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, we re-aired an important conversation I had with Dr. Ben Danielson, director of AHSHAY Center about ending youth incarceration. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. [00:01:20] Lex Vaughn: Hey, nice to be back. [00:01:21] Crystal Fincher: Hey, great to have you back - excited to have you back. I don't know that I'm excited to talk about everything on our list today, but we've got to get through it. But I do- [00:01:33] Lex Vaughn: There's a lot. [00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: There's a lot. And so - first show of the new year - we just had New Year's Eve, New Year's Day happen and we welcome that in in the greater Seattle area with a big Space Needle fireworks show. This year, it was a drone show pre-show and then a fireworks main show. And this year, there was a bit of a challenge with it - it was a smoky, hazy, kind of unintelligible soupy mess. What did you think about it? [00:02:09] Lex Vaughn: I was like, what is this? It's 2024 - did someone read like the last part of the year backwards, like 420, and go - This is a 420-themed New Year's Eve celebration? I don't know - it was funny. I mean, I was celebrating out-of-state with family, but I immediately was getting messages from people like - Did you see this? Did you see this? I mean, honestly, I think that - I know that a lot of people are flipping out and going like, Something needs to be done - but this is Seattle. Come on - you know that the Space Needle thing doesn't always work as planned and that's part of the fun. And the look of it was definitely fun this last year. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: You know, it was interesting - weather is always, always a factor in anything that happens in this region, whether it's 4th of July celebrations or New Year's Eve. I think for me, I have just been, I mean, I'm someone who has traditionally loved fireworks for most of my life and has enjoyed them. Yes, 100%. But I also, especially over the past couple of years, contending with the smoke generated by fireworks - not on New Year's Eve, but you know, July 4th, mostly, but I guess the neighborhoods on New Year's Eve - the fire hazard associated with it, which is definitely worse in the summer than it is in the winter. It just seems like now we have the option for drone shows and those seem like they're a bit more resilient - they don't create smoke. And part of the challenge of this current show was the way that the fireworks and the smoke interacted with the atmosphere, kind of making each other worse, making visibility worse. And it just seems like, okay - I am ready to move on from fireworks and to move on to drone shows. They seem like they can do everything the fireworks shows do and more. And it just seems like given where we are at with our climate, given where we are at with the volatility of just Seattle weather period, that it seems like it makes more sense to me to do that. But you know, I don't know if that's an option moving forward. You know, I don't know what's gonna happen with that. I'm not in any way affiliated with that. So it'll be interesting to see, but I wish we could move beyond fireworks personally. [00:04:38] Lex Vaughn: I'll never be over fireworks. I want that - well, I don't know - it's like, I know there's a lot of debate over it. But I also think any attempt to lessen fireworks only increases fireworks. So honestly, the best plan for reducing fireworks all over a region is always like a big, you know, show that people can watch. And when I, you know, go back to my hometown in California for New Year's or July 4th - that city stopped doing a central fireworks show. And what happened is just a proliferation of fireworks all over the city. There's just like a fireworks show going on everywhere all night. So I always think it's worth it to have one big show or you're gonna get that. [00:05:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I do think that a big show that the community can come to is important. In the absence of that, people are definitely going to celebrate on their own. I'm just thinking the big show can be a drone show. We saw a pretty successful pre-show - I thought - [00:05:45] Lex Vaughn: The drone show is a good backup. I mean, especially in Seattle, 'cause it's like, you know, you might be excited about a show and then, something about the weather happens and it's - Oh, you're not gonna see anything. So it's like the drone show is the only thing that can be guaranteed if it can move to a little space where it's free from smoke or clouds or whatever. [00:06:09] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, also wanna talk about a few more things this new year is ushering in, and that's a number of new state laws taking effect as of January 1st. One of them includes marijuana testing and changing in how that can be used by employers. Under the new law, employers are blocked from conducting drug tests for cannabis when making hiring decisions. They can still test for other drugs before hiring and they can still test employees for cannabis in certain situations, like after accidents or if they suspect someone's impaired. There are also some exemptions for companies that need to test for federal requirements and other workers potentially - including police, airline crews, corrections officers - may still have to test. But it's a pretty significant change in just kind of pre-employment testing overall - that's done with a lot of lower wage jobs, certainly not so much predominant and higher wage jobs. But it does, there has been a tension for quite some time in going - Okay, well, if it's legal, then why are you testing for it? And so this seems to bring things more in line. Do you think that makes sense? [00:07:21] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, and I hope the message of a law like this is it's not worth it because you could be breaking the law and you can get sued. Like it's a liability for you now to try to judge people this way - If you haven't like sped up with the times here and realize that it's generally not that big of a deal to use cannabis. [00:07:46] Crystal Fincher: Another law that took place is a - that is taking effect - is a 10-day gun waiting period. So as of now, those wishing to buy a firearm in Washington need to complete a background check and then wait 10 business days before they can complete that purchase. We've seen this referred to as kind of a cooling off period before wanting to purchase a gun and actually owning one. We have certainly seen a number of examples from mass shootings to domestic violence situations where people use guns to murder people immediately after purchasing them. And so while no gun reform is going to solve everything - usually no anything solves anything for everything - and it really is gonna take a patchwork of policies and laws to move forward. And this seems like a positive one to me that has some evidence behind it. [00:08:39] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, honestly, this is like, I think the most positive new law of this next year that I'm really looking forward to seeing put in place and I hope becomes more commonplace because like you said - yeah, there's a lot of reform that needs to happen to make this country safer from gun violence. But this cooling off period is a major one. When I was a reporter at The Seattle Times, I definitely covered some very tragic situations where it was very clear that a young man or something was distraught over somebody breaking up with them and made a horrible decision really quickly. And it's like in a lot of these cases, it's - what could have happened if this person had just been held to a few more days of thought before pulling that off. [00:09:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Another law taking effect impacts hospital staffing. Hospitals in Washington need to establish staffing committees made up of nursing staff and administrators. This is in response to years of advocacy really by healthcare workers saying that - Hey, these staffing ratios have gotten way out of whack. We're not able to provide adequate care to patients, patient care quality is suffering and we need to get back to staffing ratios - happening during a time where we're losing healthcare workers. There's been a lot of attrition. The pandemic only has made that worse. And so this is trying to still allow hospitals to have their say, but to do it with the input of nurses and hospital staff to say - Let's put patient safety first. Let's really work on these ratios and make sure that we're moving in the right direction and really putting patients at the center of this year. And I think this is a step forward in this direction that will bring a little bit more transparency and accountability to the process. [00:10:43] Lex Vaughn: And it's awesome that hospital staff is getting this extra leverage to make that happen. Because I mean, obviously they've been pressing for stuff like that as unions and all. But it's crazy the way they have to fight to give us quality care. Increasingly, unfortunately, in our health systems here in the US, it's like a lot of hospital administrators are more focused on turning hospitals into these profit machines without as much thought about what's happening to staff and their patients. And those staff - those are the ones rooting for us and protecting quality of care. [00:11:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So there's a new voting rights law. It's intended to address situations where there are signs of polarized voting among different groups in a community, and where there are risks to some groups having their votes diluted so they don't have a fair opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. It makes it easier to try and address this with a couple different mechanisms - it allows organizations to sue on behalf of their members, it allows local governments to voluntarily reform their election systems to be more representative of their populations, and for lawsuits to be filed if the locality refused to take such steps. So it hopefully can bring the cost down. I mean, sometimes there are clear violations, but it has been very costly - prohibitively costly - for someone to pursue it if they feel they have been wrong and want to bring that in court. So this seeks to try and address that and provide a pathway for people to be able to sue without that cost prohibitive element involved and to recover costs they incur when researching those possible legal challenges. What are your thoughts on this one? [00:12:42] Lex Vaughn: I have to admit, I was like, when I, you know, just kind of heard about this one and got a general sense of it, I was like - wait, what? This sounds a little bit confusing to me. The motivation of it is just that like, if someone is feeling outnumbered in a community, that they have strength and power to - I have to admit like this one, I didn't totally get, 'cause I don't know if I've seen a law like that before. [00:13:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is in line with previous voting rights act laws. And we have passed legislation in the same vein - I think five years ago, we passed a voting rights act in the same vein. But it's really an issue of like - we see a challenge when it comes to districting that's happening right now in Yakima, or issues where it looks like - Okay, a community's overwhelmingly voting in the same way if you look at it geographically, but things are sliced up and that's not turning out the way it is in government. I mean, there's a case to be made in a city I'm pretty familiar with - the city of Kent, the largest city in the state that doesn't have any council districts, no form of districted government, which makes the government certainly less representative than it is in other areas. But to try and bring a case or bring a suit and rectify this has been prohibitively expensive. You can see something being wrong, but whether you can pursue any remedy or whether there's any recourse is a whole different subject. And so it's like - okay, we see that there are problems happening, but we don't have the tools and power to make it realistic to expect something to be done about it. And if someone doesn't expect something to be done about a violation, if they see that there's no consequence for bad actions, it makes it more likely that that's going to happen. So this makes it more likely that - hey, if you are violating the law, if there are violations happening here, you can expect more of a consequence for that than you did before. So hopefully one that prevents further violations from happening, but for those that currently are, it makes them easier to remedy and rectify. So I think that's a positive step. Will it solve anything? Will it immediately change anything? I don't think this is like an immediately transformative piece of policy - we're going to see something that flips from night to day in this. But I do think that it's part of, again, patchwork of legislation like most things that makes it easier to hold people and entities that are violating voting rights laws accountable and to give people more tools to fix it. [00:15:25] Lex Vaughn: And maybe like slow the role of people who were planning on exploiting people in new ways or something like that. [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: Yes. Because there's a lot of that happening right now. Okay. Absolutely. Another law that a lot of cities have been dealing with is one that addresses street racing. So this law imposes tougher penalties for street racing. If you're caught, you can have your car impounded for three days on the first offense and forfeited on the second one. It also increases penalties for those who are found to be aiding and abetting street racers. I don't know if this is going to get there. I mean, that seems like a really tough penalty. I am not personally familiar with how these laws have resulted in any changes, or whether they've resulted in any changes. But it seems like they're trying to do more. That people are seeing that this is a problem - and it is a problem - it's a problem for a variety of reasons. And they're trying to do something to address it - and hopefully it does help. We will see. [00:16:28] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, I think it's - of course this is dangerous. I mean, whenever I hear something like this happened - I can't believe sometimes I hear this happened in Seattle sometimes. I'm like - What street are you on? Oh my God. This is horrible. This is not the place. But I think the thing is - there is a culture for this that will always be there. And no matter what law you put in place, I mean, you're just going to make it sexier. So, I mean, honestly, I wish that there was some way to - I don't know - give people a space to do this more safely or something. That's the real solution, 'cause it is going to keep happening. [00:17:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you're onto something there. I mean, clearly you're right - there's a culture around that - and I mean, it's so interesting. And it's kind of an offshoot of car culture. There are car enthusiasts and this is a subset of that. And it's kind of tangential, but we, as a community, as a society have been reducing the number of just alternative, recreational opportunities in spaces, particularly for younger people. And then criminalizing a lot of activity there. Some of that, you know, may be warranted. Not all activity is positive. Like we said, there's a lot of danger associated with street racing, but what are we doing to give people options to do safer activities? Whether it's racing activities or others, if we aren't providing positive, affirmative options, particularly for younger people - places for people to congregate and share that don't require an entry fee, that don't require purchase necessarily, that are places where people can congregate and recreate and do things that are meaningful to them together - that we're moving in the wrong direction overall. I think that's a valid concern and one we need to do better with as a community and society. [00:18:28] Lex Vaughn: But it's not going away. So it's - we just need a more proactive approach. [00:18:35] Crystal Fincher: Yep, and so we will keep our eye on how these laws pan out, on new laws as they pass. We have a new legislative session starting on Monday, and we'll be following along with what happens there. But we're seeing these results now and we'll keep paying attention. Also wanna talk this week about a new Crosscut poll that was just released - part of the poll at least. And the headline of this poll is - Washington voters want to spend more - while cutting taxes. Also another headline saying that 57% of people are in favor of repealing the state's new capital gains tax. Now this is interesting. We've talked about this before in the podcast, but polls are very interesting things. And it's very important to pay attention to the questions asked, who they're being asked of, and what the particulars are in this. And this one - I think there are some interesting findings in this poll, I think that you have to dig a lot deeper than these headlines. And I think that this doesn't actually tell us much about what voters' likelihood of voting for or against some of these questions asked in here. And one of the reasons why this is being asked is because there is likely to be an initiative, a statewide initiative, to repeal this tax. But it's very important to actually read the poll, to go beyond the synopsis in the article and to take a look at the actual poll. And when we do that, we see that these questions were asked in a way that they aren't asked when people are invested in, where like people working, right - if you're actually working on this thing, you would not trust this. You're not asking questions in this way. Usually when you're trying to figure out what happens - one, kind of the most important thing, you wanna ask the question in the same way that it's gonna be asked to voters on their ballot. Now we're kind of before that point, right? So a lot of times you'll hear - Well, is it the ballot title? Is it the ballot language? We don't have that yet, but you wanna get close to that. You wanna describe it in a way that you feel that they're gonna encounter it in the real world with voters. You also with this, it's very important understanding, particularly with something like this - there's gonna be a lot of money, there's gonna be a lot of communication in these campaigns. So people are gonna hear messages in favor of it. People are gonna hear messages opposed to it. They're gonna be getting mail in their mailboxes, they're gonna see digital ads, they're gonna be seeing political commercials about this - and they're gonna be getting a lot of messages. You want to expose the people you're asking those questions of of likely messages that they're gonna hear so that - okay, afterwards, is it more likely or less likely that they're going to support it? - or that you're coming closer to the conditions under which they're gonna make their decision. That's really informative and really predictive and a pretty accurate way of figuring out where support really lies. And really in those things, when you have a poll, you're asking those questions - there's a lot learned by asking the initial question before they hear any pro and con arguments. And then asking that final question - the question again - having heard all that, are you still in favor of, more likely to support, less likely to support this initiative or this law? And seeing who that moves and who different arguments influence is all part of how people put together these campaigns. None of that was in here. This was asked in kind of a kludgy way, actually, kind of a muddled way in how they did this. They kind of asked - Hey, they're expected to have a surplus from a capital gains tax and a carbon pricing trade system. What should we do with this money? And so it's just - Okay, we should put it into schools. And actually the majority of people did not say they want to keep spending at the current level or reduce taxes somehow. They were saying - majority 55% said put more money into schools, reducing homelessness, mental health programs, and combating effects of climate change. Then they asked - Okay, the following are some proposals that the legislature is expected to discuss in the coming weeks. As I read each of these, please indicate whether you favor, strongly favor, oppose, or strongly oppose each one. And so all it says is - Repeal the state's new capital gains tax. And that's it. And the other ones are - Eliminate some restrictions on when police can pursue criminal suspects in cars. Put more money into mental - like they're just asking the sentence. Now, if there's one thing, especially people involved in politics, involved in reporting know - it's that people do not have the context for this at all when you just ask that. [00:23:23] Lex Vaughn: In just a general sense, the average person is like - less taxes. Like no context, like what is it? [00:23:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, sure, it's a tax - repeal it. What is that? [00:23:32] Lex Vaughn: Are you taking more money from me? And it's like, if this does end up on the ballot, you know, again, like this year, the main message that I know we've kept saying to defend that capital gains tax is - it affects such a small number of people. It's probably definitely not you. [00:23:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, exactly. [laughing] It is such a small percentage of people. And when people are like - Oh, okay, you're not talking about something that applies to me and I'm already struggling and trying to figure this out. [00:24:02] Lex Vaughn: Honestly, that thing needs like a rebrand or something - capital gains tax. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I don't even - you know, I don't know. [00:24:08] Lex Vaughn: The 1% tax - I mean, I think it's even smaller than 1%. It's like - tippity-top. [00:24:13] Crystal Fincher: I would question whether it even needs a rebrand because the other thing about this is that we have seen a lot of high quality polling that turned out to look like it was pretty accurate when it came to this. And basically the numbers look flipped. When people actually are asked a reasonably composed question, when they - after they hear pro and con messages, they're more likely to support the capital gains tax. It has actually been a popular policy in polling that we've seen till now. And, you know, the questions were asked more comprehensively and differently than they were here. It'll be interesting to see as this continues - I mean, certainly this is going to produce a great headline, which in today's media environment is a goal for many people. Most people don't read beyond headlines. So if you can get a great headline, that is a win because then that gives people an impression of something, even though it may not be completely accurate or there's not other contexts surrounding it. But it'll be interesting to see where this comes out. I would just be leery about these results based on the way that these questions are asked, based on the fact that it does contradict other publicly available polling that we've seen. And it'll be interesting to see, but I am taking this with a grain of salt - for these results. I do think that there are - just looking, polls are always interesting things. And even if it's not the number one thing that the poll may have been designed to elicit, it'll be interesting. There's this larger discourse, kind of want to say Stancil-ized discourse - discourse about the economy, and whether people are happy, and what this means for Joe Biden, and like where people are at. And that there are a lot of economic indicators that seem positive, but people are kind of sour on the economy overall - more sour than traditional economic indicators would indicate is logical. But these questions, there's a question asked here - Hey, what's your outlook for the country? - basically - do you expect things will - in general terms, get better over the next year or get worse? Much better, somewhat better, somewhat worse, or much worse. And in these, what we saw is that people said - Okay - and it was asked four ways in four categories. Do you think this for the United States, for Washington State, in your community, and in your household? And across the board, people gave, you know, majority of people said - Hey, things are actually gonna get better for my household. Majorities across the board there. And then slightly less for their community, and then less for Washington State, and then less for the United States. So there's this difference where if you look and you ask people individually - Hey, do you think the next year for you in general terms is gonna be better or worse? Most people say better. But if you ask people - Okay, generally for the United States, do you think the next year is gonna be better or worse? Most people say worse. And the further out it gets from them, the less likely they are to think that it gets positive. There are lots of theories for why this is, there are lots of people's views - but it's an interesting dynamic that is there. And it's not a new dynamic - we've seen this before, but it certainly is more pronounced. It's very pronounced and there's a very wide gulf, wider than we've seen in quite some time. The other interesting thing about that is when you look at the crosstabs broken up there - younger people are actually more optimistic than older people, which is interesting. [00:27:52] Lex Vaughn: Now I don't trust anything in this poll. [00:27:54] Crystal Fincher: [laughs] What I don't have at my fingertips right now is enough data on this asked in different polls in a variety of different ways to immediately be suspicious and wanna look into more. Like with that question about the capital gains tax, it's just at odds with other polls that we have seen - certainly publicly available, certainly at odds with a lot of private polling. [00:28:21] Lex Vaughn: But young people being optimistic - about anything political - hmm. [00:28:24] Crystal Fincher: In some ways, right? And about like, does it, are you more optimistic about your own prospects? Like looking at the personal, 'cause the further away you get, the more politically influenced it is. But looking at the personal, it's really interesting. And I just find that very, very interesting in what that means and the difference there. And to me, when I see those things, the interest is in wanting to dive down and - okay, what explains that difference? Who is experiencing kind of in that zone between you thinking things getting better for yourself and worse overall? You know, who is in that category? Who are the people who move? What's influencing that movement is interesting to look at. So we'll link this poll. And like generally, I would just say for people, when you're consuming polls, there's usually a whole article breakdown, and then there should be in each article - there is in this article - a link to the actual poll. Always read the actual poll. Always read the questions. Because a lot of times, some of these challenges or things that seem non-standard or problematic are often visible to a layperson if they read it. Like, okay, that's a weird way to ask the question. Or, you know, if you ask me that, I might be confused. Or like, what does that even mean? So there's a lot there, but that was an interesting finding. But we're certainly hearing about this today - we're recording this on Thursday - and we'll be hearing a lot more about it. What did you think just generally about it? [00:29:53] Lex Vaughn: First of all, I have to admit - I think a lot of times I don't click on that kind of external PDF like there is here with a breakdown of who was interviewed, breakdown of landlines, cell phone, text. I'll say at least this poll does a very good breakdown of exactly who they interviewed. But in general, I don't take a lot of reporting on polls very seriously. I usually think it reveals the bias of a media organization or a polling organization. And I'm - that's informative. That's what I'm taking from this. [00:30:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's, you know, polling is an interesting thing. Polling is - not all polling is predictive. Not everybody is polling likely voters or trying to mimic an election result. Some polls are just trying to take the pulse of where people are at. This, you know, is asking some things that they're gonna be dealing with in the legislature. And it's not like there's gonna be an immediate vote up and down on proposed legislation, but it could indicate people's general satisfaction of the legislation or not. I think with these things, it is important to read the actual poll. I will say - just for here - it's important to read the poll 'cause I have seen more than one misleading breakdown of a poll, or things that omit some significant or even contradictory findings. And so I think it's important to look for yourself to - okay, not a synopsis, but if we're really talking about how important this is about policy or what people think, let me look at everything people ask and let me look at this whole poll and see what happens - because we can't always trust the breakdowns. But also just understanding what polls do and don't do. A poll that - things can change massively in either direction, right, between now and the election. These are a snapshot in time. Something, especially at this point in time, is not predictive. They're very early. There's usually - if you're asking about a specific candidate or policy, a lot of people who aren't familiar with it yet, or who don't have all of the context - there's still a lot of pro and con arguments and a lot of communication that's gonna happen. So they're not determinative, certainly. They're not absolutely predictive. But they can be useful information points. And usually they're most useful - not in the horse race sense - but in the who does something appeal to and why, if it's done well. And just understanding that - certainly from a campaign perspective is really important - Even if you set aside the - ultimate who's likely to vote for this or not type of questions. So just another interesting one. I'm sure we're gonna see other ones. I think this is part one of two that they've released, so we're going to see some more from this soon. And that was a Crosscut poll. Also this week, Seattle City Council - councils all across the state, really were sworn in - the new Seattle City Council was sworn in. And so we have a new council. We have committees that were assigned. We have Sara Nelson, who is now the council president. Sara Nelson, who is a moderate conservative, who is now seeming to be very aligned with the mayor and leading a council that is much more aligned with the mayor's office - that is much more moderate to conservative. And so we're going to see a new council and seemingly a new direction here in the state. We saw one of Sara Nelson's first actions as council president was to disband the Renters' Rights Committee, which former Seattle City Councilmember, Kshama Sawant, had chaired since 2019 - disbanded that committee, and which is not that surprising. More than half of the residents of Seattle are renters, so it seems like that is applicable to the majority of people - it would be useful and helpful. But Sara has indicated distrust and hostility of several of those efforts before, has hosted landlord support groups before. And so it is not surprising, even though it may be really unfortunate. [00:34:18] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:34:20] Crystal Fincher: But we're gonna see. What do you think about this whole thing? [00:34:24] Lex Vaughn: It's really unfortunate that a whole slate of people was elected that are probably gonna just kinda be in lockstep with the mayor. And I see all of them as like, faux-gressive - they know how to kinda have the facade of progressive to fit into Seattle, but their policies that they're rooting for are just so obviously conservative and Republican to me. Like making your first order of business disbanding a Renters' Rights Committee. [laughs] It's like, it's just amazing. And it just kind of adds to the cognitive dissonance of the whole identity of the city - who these council people are and what they're probably gonna do legally this year, the policies they're gonna enact - just makes me laugh that anyone thinks the city is liberal. 'Cause it's - unfortunately, these people that were just elected are probably going to move forward with basically a lot of conservative policies on a local level. [00:35:33] Crystal Fincher: It's gonna be really interesting to see. And for me, there's a lot that they're going to be dealing with. And just so people know - that for committee chairs, the people who are going to decide the general direction of these areas, what kind of legislation they pursue within their committees. Rob Saka will be chairing the Transportation Committee. Tammy Morales will chair the Land Use Committee. Joy Hollingsworth will chair the Parks, Public Utilities and Technology Committee. Maritza Rivera will chair Libraries, Education and Neighborhoods. Cathy Moore will chair Housing and Human Services. Dan Strauss will chair Finance, which will handle the budget, Native Communities and Tribal Governments. Bob Kettle will chair Public Safety. And the vacant Position 8 position - the person who will be appointed to the council - will chair Sustainability, City Light, Arts and Culture. Sara Nelson will chair Governance, Accountability and Economic Development. Within those, there's a lot that's gonna happen. And I think one thing that some people discount or don't expect is just how much practically they're going to have to deal with. Now it's kind of like - Okay, strip the progressive or conservative, whatever labels. There are serious issues that people have to deal with and a range of options, like a range that could be under the progressive label, a range that could be under the moderate label, right? But they're going to have to chart - well, they don't have to - their job is to chart a path forward for lots of this. Rob Saka, Chair of Transportation, which, you know, there's certainly a lot at stake - when it comes to transportation, there's gonna be a new Move Seattle Levy. He's overseeing the $700 million annual budget. We see a lot of asks and needs from the community. He's talked about getting back to the basics and being "the pothole king." And there, and it'll just be interesting to see. There's a lot of practical daily things that have to be dealt with. How is he going to do that? What approach are they going to take to a lot of things? We've seen Bob Kettle, Chair of Public Safety, talk about a lot of law and order oriented things, building a better relationship, promoting respect. We heard Sara Nelson talk about - one of her other first acts was proposing another pay increase for SPD, which is, you know, without anything changes, would deepen the budget deficit that the city is facing, barring any new revenue on the heels of other additions to that budget and elements of pay. It'll just be really interesting to see, because these things are having practical effects. They're all going to impact the budget that they're all going to have to deal with, with a major budget deficit coming up. They were all, most of these people who are new on the council were very hesitant to discuss what their actual practical plans were for dealing with this budget deficit, most hesitant to put support behind any new taxation, progressive taxation, proposals from the work group that the mayor convened on this that came up with options. But they have talked about cutting in areas. They have talked about the need to trim overall, but were hesitant or unwilling to talk about what specifically that would be. They're going to have to get into specifics now. They're going to have to deal with the things that they were hesitant to talk about during the campaign. It's going to be really interesting to see how this, how this carries out. Also, this is a very new council overall. They're going to have to get their feet underneath them. Sara Nelson announced that they are not going to be having regular committee meetings for most of this month to allow people to get up to speed - there's a lot of that that needs to happen - and that their first council meeting of the month will be on the 23rd to appoint the new councilmember that is going to take over for Teresa Mosqueda, who is, was just elected to the county. So it's going to be really interesting and just FYI - applications for that vacancy, if anyone is interested, are being accepted until January 9th. And that is Tuesday and the appointment will take place on the 23rd. Certainly a lot of talk about who might potentially take those places. We have heard a couple names bandied about, one of them being Tanya Woo, who lost - [00:40:10] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, how about not Tanya Woo? [laughing] [00:40:13] Crystal Fincher: You know, I just have a hard time - you're representing all of Seattle. It is a city that has made a strong stance and has made strong statements - fortunately - when it comes to protecting all members of the LGBTQ community, including trans people. And there's an interview with Hacks & Wonks, it's been covered elsewhere where Tanya Woo did not fully support the ability of trans people to participate in regular everyday life like everyone else, expressed reservations about trans people participating on sports teams - said if they wanted to exclude them, she would be willing to support that in a position on the city council - which just to me, there are policy differences, but then there are issues of just basic humanity and support of people and residents of the city. And that, to me, is one of those that's automatically disqualifying in my personal evaluation of that. And so it looks like that is not necessarily disqualifying for some people who might be considering this on the council, but I certainly think it should be considered with this. Now I do understand that she, I think, made an Instagram post apologizing for that and trying to clarify their position. I would just suggest that, you know, and lots of people evolve over that. So I'm not saying that that is what she thinks or believes for the rest of her life. Maybe she has changed and maybe she has learned more, and I hope that she has and that other people are on that journey. I just think that when it comes to appointing someone responsible for the city, we can appoint someone who is further along in that journey and not learning about the humanity of people at the same time that they're having to learn about all of these policies and operations that they're now having to. So it's gonna be really interesting to see. There are certainly other people who have held various elected office, school board candidates that have had exposure and that may be able to be really positive additions to the council, particularly with a number of councilmembers that have not served in elective office before - having someone who had in whatever capacity could be a very positive, helpful thing for this council. It'll be interesting to see. I think that there are - certainly there have been some names that have been talked about publicly. I think there are more names that are circulating privately. It'll be really interesting to see how this shakes out. But either way, I also don't think that's gonna tip the balance of this council. I do think that it could help with policy formation and general operational items. But I think just, you know, it's not gonna tip the balance of power of the council. [00:42:55] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I think the direction the council is gonna go is pretty well set. [00:43:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:43:01] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:43:02] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so we will see. Also this week, news of a lawsuit against the City of Burien over their new homeless camping law that - we have heard about the saga of Burien for quite some time. There was also an independent report this week that came out really chastising the city manager for not handling some of the major issues that they're doing with due care and seriousness. But this is a lawsuit being brought on behalf of unhoused people by a regional advocacy organization suing the city, claiming that it banishes homeless people, inflicts cruel punishment, and it violates Washington's constitution. The Northwest Justice Project filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in King County Superior Court on behalf of the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness and three individual plaintiffs. What were your thoughts on this? [00:43:56] Lex Vaughn: I mean, it seems like this is the next step in inevitable plan to get this in the Supreme Court. I think there's probably a variety of cities, not just Burien, who have been wanting to challenge this. So this is another showdown that'll go to a higher court. But in general, I think it's just sad that it's happening because it's - we're talking about people's right to exist. It's not just a right to be homeless or something. It's a right to exist. There are people who cannot afford shelter. We as a society are not providing them enough aid in a dark period of their life. And you can't just ask people to go poof. Like, there's no magic wand that makes them just dissipate in air overnight. They have to exist somewhere. And to criminalize that is incredibly inhumane. [00:45:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean, they have nowhere to go. Homelessness is a housing problem - it's the lack of housing. There has certainly been a lot of talk and skewed coverage presenting the homeless population as basically criminals and violent drug abusers. And one - homeless people are more likely to be victimized by crime than any other group. And if we were looking at facts and data, we would start from that point - they are not more violent than the general population. [00:45:35] Lex Vaughn: A lot of people are escaping violence. I mean, especially homeless youth, you know? [00:45:41] Crystal Fincher: 100%. [00:45:42] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:45:42] Crystal Fincher: But, you know, criminalizing - it doesn't help that. Sending someone to jail because they don't have shelter doesn't help them to get shelter - it moves them further away from it. It destabilizes people. And it's just incredibly expensive. [00:45:58] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:45:59] Crystal Fincher: There is just- [00:46:00] Lex Vaughn: So ineffective. [00:46:01] Crystal Fincher: Yes - so really expensive and ineffective. Seems like - okay, that should be the thing not to do. But that's the thing that they are rushing to do. Interesting about this lawsuit is it doesn't cite Martin v. Boise, which is a previous 2018 decision that came out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that homeless people can't be punished for sleeping outside on public property if there are no adequate alternatives to offer them. Doesn't cite that, and it is also citing that it's a violation of Washington State's Constitution. So this, you know, which to me is notable because we'll see if Martin v. Boise stands. I don't think there's absolute confidence that that's going to continue to stand, although I certainly believe it should. But this could be something else that could prevent the large-scale just criminalization of homelessness without there being any place for anyone to go. No surprise to listeners of the program - I do believe we have an obligation to provide shelter and housing for people and that we have done a poor job of that, we have not kept up with the demand. And we continue to spend tons of money on these criminalized solutions that could go so much further if we invested them in ways that have shown they're more likely to reduce homelessness. There's been lots of coverage about Housing First models, which have been under attack, and there's actually an article recently about a very coordinated, conservative attack on these models. Just anecdotally, I've seen lots of people - Housing First policies have failed - when the truth is they haven't been tried yet. We've done a lot of criminalization. We have not done that - and man, we would love to, but suggestions that they don't work and that they failed are just false and not rooted. In reality, we haven't tried them. We have tried criminalization, and that's what's gotten us here. [00:47:53] Lex Vaughn: Criminalization, another word for addiction to punishment. Doesn't matter that there's just mounds of research showing that these old techniques of criminalization don't reduce homelessness, they don't make us safer. It's just frustrating to continue to see this happen when it's like there's so much evidence and research showing that criminalization is an expensive and ineffective strategy for solving A) homelessness, and B) making us a safer community in general. [00:48:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. The last item on our list today is there is a new entrant into the race for attorney general - a Republican from central Washington, an attorney named Pete Serrano, is the first major Republican to toss his name into the ring for Washington Attorney General. So he joins former US attorney Nick Brown, senior King County Deputy Prosecutor and State Senator Manka Dhingra in the race - who are both Democrats. So if he was elected, he would be the first Republican to hold the office since Rob McKenna vacated the seat in 2012. He's running on pretty standard conservative policies right now, which are kind of out there. He announced his candidacy with the host of the Washington Gun Law blog, if that gives you any hint - he is not in favor of any kind of gun control or gun laws. He, I believe, fought against vaccine mandates, filed legal challenges against the state's COVID-19 emergency order, fought against gun control legislation, and wants to bring more of that to the AG's race. What do you think of this? [00:49:48] Lex Vaughn: I think it's interesting that the first person he was coming out swinging against is Bob Ferguson. And I think as he campaigns, he'll probably keep his aim there because even though Bob Ferguson isn't running for AG again, he's running for governor. I guess this guy is gonna sell himself as like the check on Bob Ferguson if he wins the governor's race. I think - hopefully this guy won't stand a chance - but he will make these campaigns a little bit more colorful. [00:50:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly a new dimension in this race. There were - the main people in the race, two well-known Democratic candidates or fairly well-known Democratic candidates. This being the first Republican candidate is a new dimension in the race. We will continue to follow it. We're gonna have a lot of very interesting statewide races, which is not an unusual thing - except in Washington State for the past decade, basically, where we haven't had much change there. So will be interesting to follow, and we'll keep our eyes peeled on what happens there. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 5th, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founder and editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. You can find Lex on Twitter @AlexaVaughn - you can also find her on several other platforms, as well as me. I'm everywhere @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Tuesday topical show, we present Part 1 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Election Roundtable which was live-streamed on November 13, 2023 with special guests Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve, and Robert Cruickshank. In Part 1, the panel breaks down general election results in Seattle City Council Districts 1 through 6. Similarities and differences between the contests are discussed as well as the impact of low voter turnout, lopsided outside spending, and campaign messaging. Stay tuned for Part 2 of the roundtable releasing this Friday for more election analysis! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find guest panelists, Katie Wilson at @WilsonKatieB, Robert Cruickshank at @cruickshank, and Andrew Villeneuve at https://www.nwprogressive.org. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Katie Wilson Katie Wilson is the general secretary of the Transit Riders Union and was the campaign coordinator for the wildly successful Raise the Wage Tukwila initiative last November.    Andrew Villeneuve Andrew Villeneuve is the founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) and its sibling, the Northwest Progressive Foundation. He has worked to advance progressive causes for over two decades as a strategist, speaker, author, and organizer.   Robert Cruickshank Robert is the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle. A long time communications and political strategist, he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mike McGinn from 2011-2013.   Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Election Roundtable Livestream | November 13th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 1 of our 2023 Post-Election Roundtable that was originally aired live on Monday, November 13th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure you stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for tuning in! [00:00:38] Crystal Fincher: Good evening everyone, and welcome to the Hacks and Wonks Post-Election Roundtable. I'm Crystal Fincher, a political consultant and the host of the Hacks & Wonks radio show and podcast, and today I am thrilled to be joined by three of my favorite Hacks and Wonks to break down what happened in last week's general election in Washington. We are excited to be able to live stream this roundtable on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Additionally, we're recording this roundtable for broadcast on KODX and KVRU radio, podcast, and it will be available with a full text transcript at officialhacksandwonks.com. Our esteemed panelists for this evening are Katie Wilson. Katie is the general secretary of the Transit Riders Union and was the campaign coordinator for the wildly successful Raise the Wage Tukwila initiative last November. Andrew Villeneuve is the founder of the Northwest Progressive Institute and its sibling, Northwest Progressive Foundation. He has worked to advance progressive causes for over two decades as a strategist, speaker, author, and organizer. And Robert Cruickshank - Robert's the Director of Digital Strategy at California YIMBY and Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, a longtime communications and political strategist, and he was Senior Communications Advisor to Mayor Mike McGinn from 2011 to 2013. Welcome, everyone. [00:02:02] Robert Cruickshank: Thanks for having us. [00:02:04] Katie Wilson: Yeah, thanks, Crystal. [00:02:04] Crystal Fincher: Well, absolutely. Let's start talking about the City of Seattle City Council races. There are quite a number of them - we'll break them down by district. So there were 7 districted positions. This was the first election since the latest redistricting process, so these districts are not exactly the same as they were the last time we had an election, so that may have played a little role - we'll talk a little about that later. But going into Position 1 - as we see, Rob Saka currently holds a commanding lead and he will win the race for Seattle City Council District 1 with 54% of the vote to Maren Costa's 45% of the vote. Turnout in this election was 46%, compared to 2019's 54%. Quite a bit difference. Starting with Robert, what was your take on this race? [00:03:09] Robert Cruickshank: You know, I have to say I was a little surprised at the margin of victory for Rob Saka here - for a couple reasons. One is that I thought Maren Costa ran what seemed to me to be a strong campaign that potentially would have resonated with a majority of voters, not just 45% of voters in West Seattle and in Georgetown-South Park. But also Maren Costa got endorsed by all of the other candidates in the primary aside from Rob Saka. And one might have thought that that would have conferred added legitimacy and certainly support for the campaign. It does not seem to have turned out that way. One thing I think we'll certainly want to talk about tonight is the effect of lower turnout - did that wind up sinking progressive candidates or was it other factors? But here you see the first of the seven districts - significantly lower turnout. Now if we had 2019 level turnout, would that have been enough to bring Maren Costa to victory? Hard to say. Maybe not. But this certainly is one where Maren Costa, who had a great record of standing up to Amazon - she was one of the two employees who was fired by Amazon for doing climate organizing, and then wound up getting a settlement as a result of that. I'd be interested to dive more deeply into what happened there. But it's also - one thing I would keep in mind is West Seattle - voters there have been pretty cranky and upset ever since the pandemic began - because while for the rest of us in Seattle, pandemic 2020 meant lockdowns, it meant protests, it meant a lot of disruption. For West Seattle, it also meant being cut off from the rest of the city because the bridge went out. The bridge closed right around the time the lockdowns began due to safety concerns it might collapse. And having spent a little bit of time there in West Seattle lately and talking to voters out there - there is a strong sense of disconnection, of anger and frustration, at City Hall and it's possible that got taken out on Maren Costa, who's seen as a progressive candidate. There's definitely a narrative that the business community - and their wealthy PACs and Seattle Times - tried to tell to paint progressives as a kind of incumbents here. And it's entirely possible that that was another factor here too. But certainly worth looking at to see what happened in District 1. [00:05:23] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. What do you think about this, Andrew? Oh, you are currently muted. [00:05:35] Andrew Villeneuve: I was surprised too. I think this was a result that not a lot of people maybe saw coming because if you look at the top two results, Maren had a significant lead - plurality lead, but a lead. You look at the difference - they are in two different brackets when you have - Maren Costa's up there in the 30s, Rob Saka's back there in the 20s. So I think a lot of people assumed in the general election that there was going to be a significant advantage for Maren Costa, especially having the support of all of these rivals who had not made it to the general election. But I think when you look at Rob Saka's message, I think we have to conclude that it did resonate with the voters in the district. And I'm looking at his website and just checking out all of his enendorsements - and he emphasized he was endorsed by Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell - I think that was a key endorsement that he got. I think the mayor is very popular - our organization does quite a bit of polling - some of Hacks & Wonks listeners may know. And in all of our polling this year we've seen the mayor is very popular with Seattle voters. And that includes District 3 voters, voters across the city - really he's popular all over the place. So having that endorsement and touting that as prominently as he did - I think that was a key factor. And then of course The Seattle Times - I think they have more pull in certain districts than others. And District 1, I think, is a district where I think that they have more pull than some of the other publications that endorsed in the race. I think The Stranger's endorsement matters more in District 3 than it does in District 1. And I think we saw the result of that here with this result. And it could have been closer if there had been higher turnout. I have to agree with that as well. And the fact is right now we may see the lowest turnout in the history of the state of Washington in a general election. It's not clear yet if we're actually going to get to that worst turnout marker but we are certainly close. Currently I am looking to see how many ballots are left because the Secretary of State is saying - Well, we think the turnout is going to be somewhere between 36% and 39% - that's statewide. And if we don't surpass 37.10% then it is the worst turnout 'cause that was the low mark set in 2017. And as we can see, Seattle has higher turnout than the state as a whole, but it's lower than it has been in past odd years. This is part of a disturbing trend where we keep seeing turnout declining in odd-year elections - it is not going in a healthy direction, so that could definitely have an effect. If there is an opportunity later we can talk about even-year elections and what that could do for Seattle, but I'll leave it there and we'll continue to talk about the other races. [00:08:13] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. What did you see? We will go over to this next slide here - looking at the role of independent expenditures in addition to campaign fundraising, did you see the role of money in this race being significant, Katie? [00:08:33] Katie Wilson: Yeah, totally. I haven't actually studied in detail all of the slides you put together, but this is obviously telling that there is a pretty massive independent expenditure contributions here against Maren Costa. And you have to believe that that was a significant factor. I hope that maybe you, Crystal, or someone can speak to the relative weight of independent expenditures in the different City races because I haven't looked at that but I wonder to what extent that can help us to understand some of the results. But I think the spending against Maren was really significant. I will say this was one of the races that also surprised me. Partly because whereas we saw in a couple of other districts some of the more progressive labor unions actually lined up with the more moderate candidate, in this race labor - maybe not 100%, but was pretty strong for Maren and so it also surprised me to see this margin. The last thing I'll say, because I know we have a lot to get through, is that I'm really curious about what is so horrible about Rob Saka that all of his opponents in the primary came out for Maren, so perhaps we will get to learn that - maybe that's a silver lining. [00:09:40] Crystal Fincher: Hopefully we learn he can rise above that given he is going to be a councilmember. It will certainly be interesting to see what his prime agenda is. He's certainly talked a lot about public safety, police - a lot of public safety talk involved with a lot of different issue areas. So it's going to be really interesting to see what his priorities are as he begins to govern. I want to talk about Seattle City Council District 2. And this is one that saw a pretty tantalizing result - had us all on the edge of our seats. On Election Night, which is just a partial tally because we have vote by mail - those come in day after day, it takes us days to count them. We saw Tammy Morales overtake Tanya Woo after a few days of counting. This is a very, very close race. We can see here the breakdown of what the daily ballot returns were and how those changed over time. Robert, what did you see with this race, and why do you think Tammy was able to prevail when so many of the other progressive candidates were not? [00:10:54] Robert Cruickshank: This is not the first time Tammy Morales has been in a very close election in District 2. She ran for the seat the first time in 2015 against then-incumbent councilmember Bruce Harrell and narrowly lost by roughly 400 votes. She did get, of course, elected in 2019 and now re-elected here in 2023. I think part of the story here is incumbency does help. I think the fact that Morales has worked really hard to show her voters that she delivers in southeast Seattle also goes a really long way. Obviously there was frustration among a lot of voters in the Chinatown International District area - that shows up in the results so far - Tanya Woo did very well there. But in other parts of District 2 - Columbia City and points south - Morales held her own and did well. I think you've seen in the four years Morales has been in office, she's been a champion for workers, a champion for renters. She's fought very hard to tax Amazon, supported the JumpStart Tax. She's been very attentive to the needs of the district. When a number of people were struck and killed along MLK Boulevard there, Morales stepped up and met with people, fought hard and is continuing to fight hard at the City and with Sound Transit to make safety improvements. Morales is seen by a lot of people in southeast Seattle as someone who is attentive to the district, attentive to concerns, and responsive - along with being a progressive who's delivered results. So I think those are the things that insulated Tammy Morales from a more maybe conservative-moderate wave this year. Tanya Woo certainly ran, I think, a strong campaign - obviously a very close result. But I think a lesson here is that progressives who get in office and try very hard and very overtly to show their voters that they are working hard for them, that they share their values and are trying to deliver - that can go a really long way. [00:12:56] Crystal Fincher: I definitely agree with that. How did you see this, Andrew? [00:13:00] Andrew Villeneuve: I see Councilmember Morales as someone who is willing to do the work and that really matters. In a local campaign, doorbelling counts, organizing counts. I looked at Councilmember Morales' website while I was writing our election coverage last week and I was noticing how many of the pictures that she has are her with other people - and they're holding signs and look very excited. I look a lot at how do candidates present themselves and who do they surround themselves with. And there's something about these pictures that struck me as - it's not so conventional, it's very fresh. I thought that was a good image for her to put out to the electorate. This is a hard-working councilmember who's got a lot of supporters - a lot of grassroots support - focused on the needs of the neighborhood. Incumbency matters, as Robert said. I was looking at her 2019 results as well. In 2019 she had 60.47% of the vote in that contest. And that was a sharp change from 2015 when she was facing off against Bruce Harrell and lost by only a few hundred votes. So I think that that big victory four years ago was helpful in setting the stage for this closer election this year where it was a tougher environment - the district's changed and of course you had an opponent who was well funded and trying to get the seat. And I think a more credible, perhaps a better opponent - someone The Seattle Times and others could really rally around more than Mark Solomon from four years ago. So I think that's what made the race closer. But Councilmember Morales brought a lot of strength to this race, and you can see in the late ballots that that dominance was key. And that's why it's so important that that lead change occurred last week, because if Tammy was still behind this week it would be hard to pull it out. And we're seeing that in those other two races that we'll talk about later where things got really close but there's no lead change. [00:14:51] Crystal Fincher: What was your evaluation of this race, Katie? [00:14:54] Katie Wilson: I don't have a lot to add but I'll just say I think with a margin that small everything matters, right? And so, kudos to the folks who ran that campaign and who were out knocking on doors and making phone calls and sending texts - because with just a few hundred votes that makes a difference. Fewer than a thousand votes difference in that race would be looking more like the District 7 race and we'd all be singing a very different tune. And I will just say - the implications of that race - Tammy being theon council again is going to be super important for social housing, for the success of Initiative 135, because she's really been kind of a champion of that on council and now will be able to continue that work - that was one of the things looking at the initial results that was running through my mind is - oh gosh, who's gonna carry the standard for social housing? [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: That's a great point. I also want to look at the spending in this race where Tanya Woo and independent expenditures in support of her and in opposition to Tammy Morales were substantial. And in this race, as in District 1 and a few others, we saw some very sharp and pointed criticisms coming through in mailers, in commercials. It was quite the direct voter messaging campaign. Do any of you think it went too far? Do you think it backfired at all? How did you evaluate that in this race? [00:16:38] Robert Cruickshank: I don't know that it -- obviously it didn't succeed. But again I agree with Katie that in every close - super close election like this, every little bit makes a difference. I think it's clear that it certainly helped Tanya get to a very near victory. It's entirely possible though that it also may have backfired in some ways. I think that generally speaking, voters want to hear from candidates positive things about why you should elect them. They don't want to hear a candidate delivering negative hits. Someone else delivers the negative hits - it shouldn't be the candidate themselves. So it's entirely possible that Tanya Woo maybe put a ceiling on herself by going personally directly negative. But then again just a couple of shifts here and there and we're talking about a Tanya Woo victory. [00:17:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, you raise a great point. In a race this close, everything matters. Been involved in close races before - you dissect every single little thing. Wonderful to be on the winning end, agonizing to be on the losing end of this - for the candidate and staff. As we look to the District 3 race, this was an interesting race because we had one of the most notorious active incumbents in Kshama Sawant, who had gotten a lot of ire from The Seattle Times, from some of the TV news - were not a fan of her. She was a Socialist, not a Democrat, and pointed that out fairly frequently. Was a lightning rod but you can't say she didn't represent her district. She was reelected. She withstood a recall attempt but she decided not to run for reelection, so we had Alex Hudson and Joy Hollingsworth competing to be a new representative in this district. What do you think this race was about, and why do you think we got the result that we did? We'll start with Andrew. [00:18:39] Andrew Villeneuve: So this is a race that we actually polled at NPI. We do as much polling as we can locally during odd numbered cycles, but it's tough because there's so many jurisdictions and some of them are too small to poll. But in this jurisdiction, there were enough voters that we could do a poll which was great. And in our poll we found a significant lead for Joy Hollingsworth. In the aggregate, which is a combination of a series of questions that we asked - Joy Hollingsworth got 52%, Alex Hudson got 28%, 16% said they were not sure, 3% didn't recall how they voted - that's the early voters, part of them. And 1% would not vote. So what we saw in the election was - of course, the late ballots have now come in - and what's interesting is Joy Hollingsworth's number is not very far off from the number she got in the poll. So basically it looks like the people who were planning to vote for Joy, or did vote for Joy already, did that. So they followed through - that's what they did. And it looks like Alex Hudson picked up most of the undecided voters and brought that race much closer. But Joy had this built-in lead that the poll showed was out there. Joy had done the work to build a majority coalition of voters in this election and our pollster did a good job modeling the election. They had to figure out who is going to turn out, and that's always a guess. They looked at 2019 turnout, 2017 turnout, 2021 turnout - tried to get a feel for who's that likely electorate going to be. And what we saw basically is the dynamic that was captured in the poll is what played out in the election. Joy had a majority and that majority was able to get Joy elected. Alex took the undecideds, the not sure folks, brought them in and made it a much closer race. But didn't do well enough in the late ballots to change the outcome, and that's despite District 3 being a very, very, very progressive district - a district that I think The Stranger has more influence in than other districts in the city. So I think it's really great that we were able to take a look at this race. I wish we could have done all 7 districts. But we have a poll write-up where we talked about what we heard from voters because we actually asked them - Why are you backing this candidate? We did a follow-up question. It was a ground breaking thing for us in a local poll to ask the why behind the vote. And people told us that Joy is from the district. People said she grew up in Seattle, she's genuinely invested in the community, not everyone with a political science degree knows what's best. She has extensive experience across a lot of relevant areas - greatly focused on public safety, had the mayor's endorsement, long Central area presence. So those are some of the comments that we heard. People who were supporting Alex said that she was an urbanist, she had a better set of plans. There were some really positive things people said about her. We didn't get a lot of negativity in the poll so people weren't really trashing the other candidate, but they were praising the one that they had decided to support. And I like to see that. I like to see that positive focus. So I think that's why we saw the result we did. Joy ran a really strong campaign, she connected with people. She was all over the place - I heard from District 3 voters saying, She doorbelled my home or she made herself accessible. I really liked that. And people just like to see someone from the Central District running for this council position. And my hat is off to Alex for putting together a great set of plans, running a strong campaign as well - it's just that in this election, Joy was her opponent and Joy was able to seal the deal with the voters. [00:21:59] Crystal Fincher: How did you see this, Katie? [00:22:03] Katie Wilson: I think Andrew gave a good rundown there. What I would have to add is this is one of those districts where some of the labor unions that you might think would line up with the person who is perceived as the more progressive candidate actually went for Joy. UFCW 3000 and Unite Here Local 8 both endorsed Joy and she got MLK Labor's endorsement. I think that probably mattered. I live in District 3 and I got in the mail an envelope, and when you open it there was a card from Unite Here Local 8 - pro-Joy. And so I think that for a lot of people who maybe are not in a hyperpolitical bubble, there was not a clear contrast between the two candidates in terms of who was the lefty pick and who was the more moderate pick. So yeah, I mean, and I think basically everything that Andrew said resonates with me as well. [00:23:02] Crystal Fincher: Robert, do you think that the contract - or contrast or lack of a contrast played a role in this race? [00:23:09] Robert Cruickshank: I absolutely do. I think there's an interesting column from Danny Westneat of all people in Seattle Times over the weekend, but what made it interesting is quoting a Seattle University professor who said he talked to his students and the students said - Yeah, they both seem progressive. They both seem pretty similar. And I think if you look at their campaign literature and their websites, that comes through. There's a longstanding strategy of a more moderate business-friendly candidate like Hollingsworth blurring those lines. I remember the 2013 election when Mike McGinn, the incumbent, narrowly lost to Ed Murray. And Murray ate into McGinn's base on Capitol Hill partly by blurring those lines. Jenny Durkan did a very similar strategy to Cary Moon in 2017. Blur the lines, make yourself seem progressive, make it seem like both are fine. A couple other things stand out as well. The Washington Community Alliance puts together this great general elections dashboard. And I was looking at the results so far, precinct that we have - not complete results, but so far from 2023 in District 3 - and comparing it to what we saw there in 2019. And something stood out to me immediately, and Andrew alluded to this. On Capitol Hill itself, Alex Hudson did really well, so did Kshama Sawant. In the northern part of the district - North Capitol Hill, Montlake, and anywhere along the water, Leschi, Madrona - Egan Orion in 2019, and Joy Hollingsworth did well in those areas. In the Central District, Kshama Sawant put up 60, 65, 70% in those precincts. In 2023, Joy Hollingsworth won most of those Central District precincts. That seems to be where the battle for District 3 was won by Joy Hollingsworth and lost by Alex Hudson. So I think that's a big part of it. I think the fact that Hollingsworth is from the community, is herself a woman of color, I think that resonated really strongly there. I think that those factors meant Alex Hudson had a real hill to climb, literally and figuratively, getting up there in District 3. And I don't think Alex was able to do it. You know, we at the Sierra Club endorsed Alex, but we interviewed all the candidates, and they were all really strong candidates there. I think ultimately, there's an interesting contrast with Sawant and Hudson that - I haven't figured out where I am on this, but it's interesting to think about. You know, Sawant won four elections in Seattle, the last three of which were in District 3 against huge corporate opposition. And one of the ways she prevailed was by mobilizing a strong base and by showing she delivers for her base. She delivers for workers, she delivers for renters - everybody knows that. And her base of activists from Socialist Alternative are out there aggressively getting votes. They did a great job of it. Unfortunately, Hudson is much more of a wonk candidate. She has extensive experience with housing and transit, knows local government inside and out. And when Sawant was in office, you'd hear a lot of progressives lament Sawant's approach, lament Sawant's attitude and style. And wish they had someone who was more of a wonk who'd work within City government - that's definitely Alex Hudson, but you gotta get elected. And what we see is that there's something to Sawant's approach - not that you have to agree with all of it - there's something to her approach to winning elections that I think progressives can learn from. And I think that - looking back, I think Hudson may have wished she could be more overtly progressive, especially when it comes to finding the things and finding the issues that motivate the base to show up. That's one of the only ways you would be able to overcome Hollingsworth's strength in that key battleground in the 3rd District, which is the Central District. [00:26:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you've hit on something there. And I think it's something that we see in the Tammy Morales race, that we've seen from Kshama Sawant - that if you are a progressive, playing it safe, trying to not be that progressive - not saying that these candidates were overtly trying to not be progressive. But you have to show that you're willing to fight and willing to deliver. You have to show that there's some basis to believe that not only are you talking the talk, but you can also walk it. And I think this race could have benefited for more of that on the progressive end. But it's gonna be interesting to see because Kshama was unique in many ways, but lots of lessons to learn from her just epic ground game that she had race after race. And do have to hand it to Joy Hollingsworth, where I think - similar to Andrew and others - have heard anecdotally for quite some time that she has been out there knocking on doors, that she has been out there talking to community. And that is extremely important and only helps a candidate to be in contact with so many people in the community. So going to District 4 - which this is a race that still isn't called, still is too close to call for a lot of people. What do you see happening here? And what do you think is this dynamic happening in this district, Robert? [00:28:19] Robert Cruickshank: You know, I think this is another one where it is a very sharply divided district within itself, similar to District 3. You've got not just the U District - obviously is going to vote more progressive. So was most of Wallingford and areas around Roosevelt and even parts of Ravenna. But then once you get further north and further east towards the water, you get a bit more moderate, even more conservative. And once you're of course out in like Laurelhurst or Windermere, you're among the wealthy class. But Davis fought hard, fought very closely - nearly won. I don't know that there are enough remaining ballots as of here on Monday night to give Davis enough room to make that 300 vote gain that he needs. But he fought really close and really hard against a huge mountain of corporate money. This is one where I really have to wonder - if we saw 2019 levels of turnout, would we see a Davis victory? The results certainly suggest, especially as the later ballots came in, that might well be the case. Davis ran, I thought, what was a very strong campaign, certainly one that connected with a lot of people in the district. But so did Rivera. And I think this is a interesting test case for how did sort of The Seattle Times-Chamber of Commerce narrative play out? Was Davis able to really overcome that and tell his own narrative of where we should go in Seattle? It certainly seems like in a lot of these races, any progressive candidate faced a lot of headwinds from just a constant narrative that the city is unsafe, city's on the wrong track, it's the fault of progressives and the city council, we have to make a change. And that drumbeat was really loud and really constant. And as you see here on the slide, Davis was outspent significantly greater - nearly half a million dollars spent against him to defeat him by putting out that message. How do you overcome that? You've gotta try to build a base, you've gotta try to actually get out there and sell a strong progressive agenda. I think Davis did as much as he could, but it clearly wasn't enough. This is one race where, gosh, I would love to be able to see good polling after the fact and take a deep dive into what happened here. Because I think if you wanna find a candidate who isn't an incumbent, is a progressive, and who tried to win against all this money - Davis ran what I think a lot of us would have considered to be a smart campaign. But I'm sure there are things that were missed, mistakes were made - that I think are worth taking a closer look at once we have more data. [00:30:54] Crystal Fincher: Do you think it was possible to win this race given the headwinds, Katie? [00:31:02] Katie Wilson: Well, I mean, with a margin that small, you have to say yes. I mean, again, small things matter. But I mean, I guess I think what I would say here - and this is not really just about this race, but as we're going through these races district by district and picking out the little things about the candidates or the spending or whatever - I think it is important to keep in mind something that Robert alluded to, which is turnout. And Danny Westneat had this piece, which Robert mentioned, that really just laid out kind of like - not only is turnout way down from 2019, like double digits down, but it's young voters who didn't turn out. And I really have to think, I mean, I think that like if we had seen 2019 levels of turnout with that demography, this race would have turned out differently. I think it's even possible that Districts 1 and 3 could have turned out differently. I mean, the difference is so great in turnout and in who voted. And that is not just a Seattle thing. That's not a, so I mean, that was something that Westneat seemed to kind of emphasize the "Sawant effect" or something, but this is bigger than Seattle, right? This is like countywide, statewide - you look at the turnout numbers and turnout across the state is way, way lower than 2019. And it is young voters who would have voted strongly progressive who didn't turn out. So I think that's just a really significant thing to keep in mind as we kind of nitpick all of these races. Sorry, crying baby. [00:32:25] Crystal Fincher: We're doing baby duty and that happens and we're fine. Andrew, what did you think? [00:32:30] Andrew Villeneuve: Yeah, some great things have been said by Robert and Katie about this race. I was so impressed with Ron Davis as a candidate. I just found him extremely thoughtful. I'm like - why can't we have candidates like this in every city? Maritza Rivera also had some really interesting things in her campaign that I liked. But I think what was really striking for me is Rivera, if you go on her endorsements page, you'll see Bob Ferguson is the very first endorsement listed there. And that's really interesting. And not everyone can get an endorsement from Bob Ferguson. Maritza Rivera had one and made sure that people knew that she had that endorsement. Also, you see Mayor Harrell's endorsement there. The mayor's doing well in this election. His candidates are doing well, and I don't think that's a coincidence. And I also noticed Sara Nelson's endorsement there. Sara Nelson gets a lot of flak from folks in Seattle, especially on the left, perhaps deservedly so for some of the positions she's taking. But in our polling, she's actually got a pretty good approval rating relative to other members of the council. I say relative because these things are relative. So Sara Nelson is perceived better right now than other members of the council - and that includes Councilmember Sawant, who's leaving her district with a horrible, awful job performance rating, including from her own constituents. It's not just citywide. Our polling was very, very clear on that. People are not happy with her job performance. So she was able to get elected several times, she built an amazing coalition. But then that support has eroded away. And I think that's why she didn't seek re-election. I think she realized she was going to have some difficulty getting re-elected if she sought re-election. So exiting allows to avoid a defeat, which I think is a good strategy, because then you can go and take your experience in elected office and do something else. But I just thought Davis had a tremendous set of ideas. He engaged with groups that other candidates didn't, from what I heard. And what I really liked was, again, he had this thoughtful, urbanist-centered vision. It really appealed to me personally. If I was in District 4, I'd be like - wow, this is just really exciting vision for Seattle. And his voters' pamphlet statement just talked about how everyone deserves a home in Seattle. And the themes that I saw there were very powerful. And I'm a little surprised that he didn't quite have a stronger Election Night performance. I thought Rivera might lead, but to see him down by as much as he was, that wasn't quite what I thought we might see. And I don't do predictions, so I'm always willing to be open-minded and see what happens. But I was thinking that the race would be closer on Election Night, and then it would be possible for there to be a lead change by the end of the week if that were the case. But instead, Maritza Rivera has kept a lead throughout this count. So I think, unfortunately, Ron Davis is out of runway to turn this around. But he came really close. And I think he should definitely run for office again. [00:35:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, a lot of great ideas that we heard. Go ahead, Katie. [00:35:25] Katie Wilson: Sorry, just to add one thing to what I was saying before from the Westneat column. This is roughly 40,000 fewer Seattleites showed up for this election than in 2019. So if you look at that, we're talking about an average of 5,700 votes in each district that would have been added. And so you look at these margins, and that would have shifted several of these races. [00:35:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. And then I also-- I'm looking at this difference in spending. And the spending isn't just money. It's communication. It's the commercials that you see, it's the mailers that you get, it's the digital ads that you see. And those do move some voters. Are they going to close a 25-point deficit? No. But can they move a race 5, 10 points? Absolutely. And so as I'm looking at this, I'm looking at just how close this race is. And it seems to me that money definitely impacted this race, as did turnout, as did so many other things. But it just seems really hard to be able to go up against that amount of communication when you don't have it - to be outspent, to be out-communicated by that degree. And given that, I do think Ron Davis mounted a really, really good campaign for hopefully his first campaign and not his last, because he did contribute a lot of great policy ideas, concrete policy ideas, that I think would do the city good. Moving to District 5, where we saw ChrisTiana ObeySumner versus Cathy Moore. This race was pretty conclusive as of the first tally on Election Night. What was your evaluation of this, Andrew? [00:37:11] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, this was the one race I think that everyone could say - That's done - on Election Night. That's a done race. We can see where things are going. And of course, there has been a shift in the late ballots, but not enough of one to threaten Cathy Moore's position. So I guess what we saw is Cathy Moore had a campaign of enormous strength, resonated with the electorate. And we just didn't see the same from the other side. I mean, I know The Stranger made a very powerful case. But you look at the top two field, and there were other candidates - Nilu Jenks was running and didn't quite make it. But I feel like the fact that there wasn't a stronger vote for ObeySumner in the top two, that sort of set up the general election. I think you want to have as much support as you can get in the top two. And then you want to be able to run as strong of a general election campaign as you can. And I think that here, there might not have quite been the same resonance with the electorate for that candidacy. And I think that that's part of the issue - when you are having trouble connecting with voters for whatever reason, then you're going to see that kind of lopsided results. And sometimes there's nothing you can do about it because for whatever reason, you're just not clicking. But I heard from a lot of folks who-- I asked every District 5 voter, who are you voting for? And everybody basically told me Cathy Moore - that I talked to. And I ran out of people to ask to see if I could find any ObeySumner voters. But to me, that sort of spoke for people had talked to their neighbors, they had considered their choices, and they settled on Moore. And so that's where we were on Election Night. And of course, again, late ballots - we saw some change, but not a whole lot of change. And so again, I think hats off to Cathy Moore for running a campaign that brought together a lot of people, excited a lot of folks. And we'll see now how Cathy does on the council as Debora Juarez's successor. [00:39:16] Crystal Fincher: And Robert? [00:39:18] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I'm a District 5 resident - voted for ChrisTiana, but have had many conversations with Cathy Moore. And Cathy Moore is definitely not easy to pigeonhole as a corporate moderate. Cathy has, I think, some pretty strong progressive background and positions. This is an interesting district up here in District 5 too, that - people assume it's so far north that we're almost suburbs, and that's kind of true. But there are also large pockets of immigrant populations, people of color, low-income folks. And if you look at the map so far of the precincts - votes that have come in so far - ChrisTiana, they've only won a single precinct in Pinehurst, but they're pretty close in areas like Licton Springs, north Greenwood, Lake City. They're almost neck and neck with Cathy Moore in some of those areas - these are some of the denser parts of the district as well. Again, I don't think anyone's surprised that Cathy Moore prevailed by a fairly wide margin here. Again, given what Andrew pointed out in the primary, that that seemed foretold there. But I just wanna emphasize that Cathy Moore did not run the same race that maybe Rob Saka or Maritza Rivera or Bob Kettle or Pete Hanning ran. And I think that certainly helped. It's a district that four years ago, handily reelected Deborah Juarez over Ann Davison, who's of course now our city attorney. Which suggests that in District 5, there's definitely a lot of support for a left of center, but not too far left of center candidate. Well, again, we'll see what Cathy Moore does on the council. I think Cathy also ran a campaign that was good, but also kind of promises a lot of things to a lot of people. And the rubber will meet the road in the next few months on the council, especially as some important decisions come up around budget, around police contract, and around transportation levy. [00:41:17] Crystal Fincher: Now, moving on to District 6 - this is where we saw incumbent Councilmember Dan Strauss wind up overtaking and winning the race over Pete Hanning. How did you see this race, Andrew? [00:41:34] Andrew Villeneuve: So this was a race where we saw our first lead change, and Councilmember Strauss was fortunate in that he had the advantage of incumbency. He also, I think, had a district that perhaps, he felt like - okay, I can handle this redistricting, like I can handle some adjustments to the lines. I think he was well-prepared to face a slightly different electorate than what he faced in his last campaign. And he also was mindful of his public safety posture as he went into the campaign, realizing that - we're gonna talk about District 7 next - but realizing that it's important for people to perceive you on public safety as being someone that understands the issues that are out there in the community, which we know are significant. We know some people are concerned about property crime. We know some small business owners are very vocal about the issues they're going through, they're looking for more help from the city. And I think Councilmember Strauss was ready for that dynamic. I also think he made an effort to present himself as someone who's gotten things done. And he got not the most enthusiastic endorsement from The Stranger, but it didn't seem to hurt him too much. I mean, they sort of riffed on his "Ballard Dan" moniker. I went to his website and was reading about how he presented himself, and he's talking in his campaign bio about non-political things. And I think that's a really interesting and smart choice is to show yourself as not just a politician, but also a fellow community member, someone who has different interests. You're not just interested in politics - that's not the only thing you care about. And I think that that helped him connect with voters. I think it's very important for people to see who you are - that helps them identify with you. It's very important that people identify with you when they go to vote, because elections tend to turn on identity and trust more than anything else. Issues do matter, of course. And those of us who are very much in the wonkish space, we love people's issues, positions - we love to evaluate them. But I think a lot of voters are more in the mindset of - Do I want this person representing me in government? And they think about it at a very basic level. They don't think necessarily about people's issue positions. And they certainly don't have an Excel spreadsheet where they run a calculator to see whose position they're closest to. So I think that was one of the key things that I saw here was just, again, Strauss presenting himself as someone that folks could identify with and empathize with. And I also think Pete Hanning could have run a stronger campaign here - not as much resources on Hanning's side as I thought we might've seen, and that could have been a difference maker. Again, in a close race with a lead change, it's like just what we were talking about earlier - anything can make the difference. So we could talk about a lot of different factors, but what I saw was an incumbent who was interested in getting reelected and put in some of the work. And made sure that there were reasons for people to identify with him. And I think that we saw that worked out for him, and he was the first of the two incumbents to get that lead change on Thursday. So congratulations, Councilmember Strauss, on your reelection. [00:44:37] Crystal Fincher: How did you see this, Katie? [00:44:41] Katie Wilson: Yeah, I don't - sorry, I'm a little bit distracted. But yeah, I mean, I think that Councilmember Strauss definitely did somewhat of a pivot to the right, or just trying to kind of blow with the winds of his district and that paid off. And yeah, I'll pass it on to Robert. [00:45:02] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think a couple of things stand out. Certainly the slide that's being displayed right now - notice there's no independent expenditure against Dan Strauss. Strauss clearly cozied up to the Chamber here, he cozied up to Mayor Harrell. So his blowing with the wind, which I think is an apt description, worked. It also worked when Dan put out mailers saying, I voted against defunding the police. Dan has been very active in trying to get encampments cleared at Ballard Commons Park and other areas in the neighborhood. So I think we who are progressive - who don't want to see a renewal of the War on Drugs, we don't feel comfortable when we see sweeps happening, we're not totally comfortable with this current mayor - have to do some reflection here. And the fact that Strauss took these positions that we who are progressive don't really like and prevailed with it - isn't great for us. And I think we've got to be honest about that and reflect on what that might mean, and how we pivot, and how we handle things differently. It doesn't mean we should abandon our core values. You never do that in politics, otherwise we should go home. But I think we got to take a look at this race and see why. Now, a couple other factors I want to point out. Again, Strauss is a incumbent and that helps. Also his district is fairly favorable. I think there's sometimes a reputation that like Ballard gets as being a bunch of cranky, conservative Scandinavians and it's just not. If you have a view of the water in District 6, you voted for Hanning. If you don't, you probably voted for Strauss - and that goes as far up as North Beach, North of 85th Street, which is pretty well off, parts of Crown Hill, pretty well off, lots of homeowners in Phinney Ridge and Greenwood, Ballard and Fremont all voting for Dan Strauss by pretty healthy margins. So I think the fact that that district - one that reelected Mike O'Brien in 2015, and I think would have reelected him in 2019 had O'Brien had the stomach for it - it is a favorable one. I think there's more opportunity there then Strauss was able to really make out of it. But again, this is a race where, press as we can point to things that didn't go our way, we didn't get the turnout we wanted, we had a lot of money spent against us, but someone like Dan Strauss who sort of blew with the wind, decided which way the wind was blowing, moved away from a lot of our positions and prevailed. So we have to be honest about that. [00:47:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this race I thought was interesting because he did run away from his record basically and try to correct for that. It's really interesting because we saw two different approaches from two incumbents who both wound up successful. Tammy Morales, who is probably now the most progressive member remaining on the council - one of the most progressive before - showed that she was engaged and she did care. And I think maybe the key is really that - there has been this prevailing idea that progressives just don't care about crime or they wanna go easy on it. And one thing I think both Dan Strauss and Tammy Morales did was show that they cared very deeply and they were willing to stay engaged, stay involved, try and push through public safety, community safety initiatives that both of their districts had been calling for. And being engaged is what helped them. And really showing that they care and showing that they're working on the problem is what helped them - both of them - in those races, even though they have taken very different approaches and Tammy Morales stood by her record, fought hard for the district and a number of different things. So that was interesting for me to see - just the different approaches - but both looking like they were successful as long as they were engaged. [00:48:55] Shannon Cheng: You just listened to Part 1 of our 2023 Post-Election Roundtable that was originally aired live on Monday, November 13th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure to stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow Crystal @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thank you for tuning in!

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! First up, for those looking to supercharge their engagement in Washington State policymaking or advocacy, Crystal gives a shout-out for the Washington State Institute for a Democratic Future program. Applications for their 2024 class are open and due by November 20th for early applicants (there is also an extended “late application period” until November 27th but with an increased application fee). Check out the program that launched Crystal's career in politics and see if it's right for you! Crystal and Erica then dive into a roundup of election news starting with how the Seattle City Council is losing institutional knowledge with its makeup shifting after last week's election results, meaning the new council will need to get up to speed on many complex upcoming issues such as the City budget, the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) contract, and the Comprehensive Plan. Contributing to this loss of experience is Teresa Mosqueda moving over to the King County Council and how speculation has begun over who her appointed replacement will be. The election news wraps up with two snafus - the King County website breaking on Election Night and USPS finally delivering missing ballots from an unchecked mailbox. Moving on from elections, they discuss Seattle budget news - a $20 million increase in the JumpStart Tax to fund student mental health care programs, narrow passage of controversial ShotSpotter surveillance technology, continued struggle to fund City employee pay increases, and a spotty outlook for much-needed progressive revenue solutions. Delving further into City worker wage issues, the City sent an oblivious email to workers providing financial tips whilst asking them to accept a sub-inflationary pay increase and the tentative firefighters' union contract also doesn't keep up with cost of living. Finally, Crystal and Erica revisit the saga unfolding in Burien with a looming deadline to accept $1 million to address their homelessness crisis and Sound Transit resumes fare enforcement. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources WAIDF - Washington State Institute for a Democratic Future   “Morales Surges While Other Progressives Flail in Latest Election Results; Mosqueda Explains Why She'll Stay Through the End of This Year” from PubliCola   “Who Will Replace Teresa Mosqueda?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “County Website Failed on Election Night Due to “Traffic Issue”” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “USPS failed to deliver ballots from one Seattle mail drop box” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “City Budget Will Fund Shotspotter—But Also Significant Progressive Priorities, Including $20 Million for Student Mental Health” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “A Mixed Seattle Budget, While a $221 Million Deficit Still Looms” by Amy Sundberg from Notes from the Emerald City   “City Employees Seeking Wage Increase Advised to “Avoid Impulse Buys”” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Firefighters' Tentative Contract Could be Bad News for Other City Workers Seeking Pay Increases” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “As Deadline to Use or Lose $1 Million in Shelter Funding Looms, Top Burien Official Offers New Explanation for Failing to Inform Some on Council” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “King County gives Burien deadline to take $1 million for homeless shelter” by Greg Kim from The Seattle Times   “Sound Transit to start issuing citations today to riders who don't pay” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times   “Seattle light rail is about to get heavy for those who don't pay the fare” by Joshua McNichols from KUOW   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical shows and our Friday week-in-reviews delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our 2023 Post-Election Roundtable on Monday night, you can catch the recording on our YouTube channel, or Facebook, or Twitter feeds. We'll also be releasing the roundtable next week as podcast episodes. Tune in for our breakdown of last week's election results with guest panelists Katie Wilson, Andrew Villeneuve and Robert Cruikshank. Also wanna make sure if you can't listen to the Post-Election Roundtable, it will be available on the website with a full text transcript. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:38] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:01:40] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back as always. It's the time of year where I get to talk about the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future. It is that time again and seeing as how this is Hacks & Wonks and a lot of you are hacks and wonks who are listening, the Washington Institute for a Democratic Future is really ideal for people who may be interested in looking at working in policy or politics, getting more involved in their community and activism. It is a six-month fellowship that runs from January to June that has 10 intensive weekends plus an optional week in Washington, DC. And each of these weekends is in a different place geographically across the state. And it gives you the opportunity to do a deep dive on policy, how that policy is impacting people on the ground from a variety of different perspectives - so, you know, there's a huge network of legislators, policy experts, advocacy organizations, unions, business owners, different people. So you may go to Kitsap County and explore the economy in Bremerton and issues that are happening there. In Central Washington, issues that are important there and talking about legislation that impacts migrant workers and immigration - from a policy perspective - but also talking to workers and representatives for themselves, talking to farmers and business owners there to see how they're being impacted and what their feedback is and what they feel the most prevalent issues that they have. So it's getting a really comprehensive view of what people are facing on the ground throughout the state and how policy is impacting that and has a potential to impact that. So just really important - that is absolutely what I credit for me working in politics. I started my political career after doing IDF - just a really powerful network and a really powerful policy education in ways that really matter and getting to see that a lot of times the situations aren't simple, different people have different perspectives, policy impacts people in different ways. Few things are 100% good and positive and 100% bad or negative. It's really understanding how things impact people differently and trying to do the most good as possible, particularly considering sometimes what's politically possible, different types of activism - whether you're working legislatively, electorally, just more on the ground in community, mutual aid, just a lot of different things. So I recommend this. The early application deadline is Monday, November 20th - so coming up. There's an extended late application period that continues through Monday, November 27th. The website is democraticfuture.org. There's more information about it there, but definitely encourage anyone who may be considering working in politics or who's interested in that - who wants to understand how they can more deeply impact policy in their community and state - to do that. I do want to underscore that you don't have to already be an insider. You don't have to have any idea of what's going on, really. This is a Democratic organization - it is not catering to Republicans, I can tell you that - but looking at people with a variety of experience from diverse backgrounds across the state. It's just a program that I heartily recommend, and I believe most people who go through it come out on the other end more able to impact change in the world around them. So apply to the Institute for a Democratic Future. Well, we think we have a pretty good view of what actually happened with the election now. It's taken a while to count, but what are your takeaways from the general election that we just had? [00:05:39] Erica Barnett: Well, I mean - as others have said, and as I've said in other venues - obviously we are, the City we, are going in a more centrist direction with the city council. From Position 7 - electing Bob Kettle over Andrew Lewis - kicking out a couple other councilmembers. So politically, I think the direction is going to be a little less progressive generally, a little more in the sort of Sara Nelson centrist direction. And I think - big picture - the council is going to be made up primarily of new people and people without a whole lot of experience. The most experienced councilmember, I believe, will be Tammy Morales, who just narrowly got reelected - correct me if I'm wrong on that. But not a lot of institutional memory and knowledge on the council, which I think is going to be - it's always problematic when you lose the majority of an institution all at once, right? And when you're talking about staff who have been there for a long time, as well as councilmembers who maybe have a few terms under their belt - so people are going to be learning on the job and they're gonna be doing it in a year when there's a massive looming budget crisis, when there is the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract on the table, and just lots of other things that the new council is going to have to grapple with - that are really, really big problems and big questions - and they'll be doing it, sort of coming in with virtually no City experience in almost every single seat. [00:07:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that is - it's a really big deal. And we talked about this kind of in the beginning when people were filing or announcing that they weren't running for re-election - kind of hitting a lot of people going - we're losing a ton of institutional knowledge. And just the work that it takes to get up to speed, it's not just what do you wanna do with issues, with - and even with that, a number of the new councilmembers on the campaign trail had a lot of questions, had a lot of things that they wanted to find out and investigate and get to the bottom of, but maybe not as many new ideas. And they're gonna have to understand just procedurally how do things work. Legislation is a weird thing - crafting legislation, working it through the process is not an intuitive endeavor. And it does take institutional knowledge. There's so many reports, committees, just things to digest when you're getting in - even if you've held office before. If you haven't, that's just a big mountain to climb to get your feet underneath you as far as how to understand what's happening from all of the different information sources, advocates, departments, but also how to then enact and respond to the challenges that are happening. I think in this situation, it actually passes a big advantage to the mayor's office. The mayor's office does have a lot of institutional knowledge. The mayor's office does have an agenda that they wanna enact. And right now the council - the new council - is not going to really be in a position to ask questions based on historical knowledge, to investigate or interrogate what expenditures may be, what proposals may be, if there is precedent for something, if there isn't, how something fared before when it was proposed or when it was enacted. There are a lot of things that we do and undo in government and understanding the history of that - how it worked out - is actually really useful so we can learn from what we did before and do better next time, particularly when implementation with a lot of programs has been a major issue. So I am concerned for what this is going to look like in practice with a council that just is really inexperienced. [00:09:41] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I mean, and I just was thinking as you're talking - just kind of going through all the different folks that have been elected and thinking about how - on the current council, I would lift up Lisa Herbold as an example of somebody who's been there 25 years in various roles. And she is the person, particularly like during budget, who brings up things that have happened in the past or says - Well, we actually discussed this six years ago and this was the discussion then, or there's a proviso on this money that says this. And you need someone who is able to do that, whether it's a staff member or a number of staff members or a councilmember, not just during budget time, but during - for example, the SPOG contract. Five members of the council sit on the Labor Relations Policy Committee and they're going to be bargaining with the police guild and Mayor Harrell's office. And if you are talking about people that don't have a lot of institutional knowledge of what came before, I mean - like you, I'm concerned that they're just going to get steamrolled by whatever the mayor's office and SPOG decide that they want or that they can agree to. And I also thought of another thing that they're going to be doing next year, which is the Comprehensive Plan. There's a major update every 10 years and that's happening next year. And that's the document that guides planning and development and zoning for the entire city. And during the campaign, this was a question that came up - which Comp Plan option do you support? And everybody said Comp Plan 5 - for the most part. And I think that without getting into the details of what that even means, I would be really curious to ask every single person who was elected - So what's in Comp Plan 5? Because I think that sometimes campaigns deal with surface level issues, but the Comprehensive Plan is a massively complex document that they're going to be discussing over the course of a year now - starting in January, February - and it's really consequential. So that's just another example of a complex decision that this council is going to have to be making - again, without a lot of institutional knowledge. And I will say just to mention one idea that got squashed this year, Teresa Mosqueda, who is one of the councilmembers who's leaving to go serve on King County Council, brought up the idea of doing staggered elections so that instead of electing all 7 district city council seats all at once, like we did this year, we would do 4 one year and then 3 two years from then. And the idea is that even if you elect a completely new council every four years, at least people have a couple of years of experience under their belts. And that idea just got quashed, and I think it's very unlikely to happen - but that would have made a little bit of difference. [00:12:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I thought that was an excellent idea - was sad to see that not be able to move forward. Now, speaking of Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, who was just elected to the King County Council - this now brings up an issue of there being a vacancy timing around when she can choose to go or not. Evidently there's been some calls - maybe people looking at the Supreme Court or Congress, different things, and then looking at the Seattle Council and going - Well, hey, if there's an opportunity to get another progressive in, maybe you should leave early. Why did she appear to decide against that? [00:13:31] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I mean, Teresa Mosqueda is not Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And one big difference is that she is not independently wealthy and - nor is her staff. And so I think that just as a practical matter - and this was my immediate reaction actually when I started seeing calls for her to step down and just kind of not have a job for a couple months, was - well, like normal people can't do that. And even if you're making $130,000 a year, or whatever it currently is at the city council, it is hard when - she has a little kid. And her staff, some of whom may go over with her to King County Council, still need to make a living. So there's a very practical consideration. And the other thing is, I think it's a bit of sour grapes. I mean, the voters have spoken and I think it would be a bit of sour grapes to say - Well, we're gonna shove a progressive onto the council under the wire. But more importantly, I don't think that it would probably work. I don't think it would be successful to try to get - for Teresa Mosqueda to try to appoint another Teresa Mosqueda-type to the council because you have to get the support of your colleagues. And I don't know that the current council would be willing to sort of subvert the process. I mean, it wouldn't be subverting the process, it would just be rushing it a bit. But to do that at this point, when we have a new council coming in, it just - there's a sense of fairness about that, that I think would strike some of the current council the wrong way, even if they are more progressive people who are leaving. [00:15:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's not like there's a situation now, or upcoming with the new council, where there is a one-member majority and this one change is going to tip the balance of decisions that are made. I think with looking at some of the budget action, which we'll talk about shortly, earlier this week - we can see that's not the case. And there's also just the responsibilities of the job, which I think Teresa Mosqueda takes seriously. The City of Seattle is heading into a pretty significant budget deficit - hundreds of millions of dollars budget deficit. And I think most people consider her to be the foremost budget expert on the council - particularly with so many new people coming into the council and so much work to do on the budget, the more work she can do to help prepare this next council for what's gonna happen, to help usher in what hopefully will be sustainable changes to the budget, the better for everyone and for the city, I believe. So that's gonna be interesting. I did see Hannah Krieg report on rumors that Tanya Woo is either angling for, or people are angling for her, to be appointed to that position when that does happen. Tanya just lost a very narrow election to Tammy Morales in Seattle's District 2. What do you think the prospects for that would be, or what that would mean? [00:16:45] Erica Barnett: Well, I mean, I would be completely speculating, but it does seem - and segue to completely speculate about that - I mean, it does seem sort of unlikely, you know, just looking at historical appointments for the council to appoint somebody who ran against one of the people that won. Historically what the council has done is either appoint sort of placeholder people who have said they're not going to run for re-election, because remember - this is just a temporary position until the next election, which in this case would actually be in 2024. Because of the way it works, it would be the next state election since there's not another city election until '25. So you're talking about a very temporary seat. I don't know. At this point, my gut would be that they wouldn't do that. But again, that is just speculation. I know Brianna Thomas, who ran for council a couple of times and now works in the mayor's office in labor relations, is another potential person who is definitely angling for that position. So she seems like another possibility, but again, that's somebody who really wants to stay on the council and maybe perceived as progressive, or a member of the kind of progressive wing of the council - she worked for Lorena González, who's quite progressive, before joining the mayor's office. So I'm not following that super, super closely yet, but yeah - it'll be interesting, but perhaps not hugely consequential, except for 2024, who ends up getting that position. [00:18:36] Crystal Fincher: I wanna talk about another Election Night story, or one that was really made plain on Election Night. And that was King County's elections website and its performance or lack thereof on Election Day. What happened? [00:18:50] Erica Barnett: Yeah, so I've been wanting to write about the King County website and it's not just the elections website, but we'll talk about that specifically. But I would encourage people to go to kingcounty.gov and just check it out. See what you think. They did a big website redesign, revamp. And one of the consequences of that revamp is that it's really hard apparently to load sort of new information into the website for just kind of regular County departments. And so on Election Night, if you are an election watcher, what ordinarily happens is that you start refreshing the webpage around 8:10p. The results usually go up right around 8:15p. And so on Election Night, people were refreshing, refreshing, refreshing, but there were no results for at least 15 minutes. I actually gave up and got the results from King 5, which apparently got them because the elections people had to post the results on Twitter. I'm not really on Twitter that much anymore, so I didn't see this, but they had to create essentially a workaround for this website that is - it's not only does it look like something from - I don't know, 1999, maybe that's a little mean, 2003 we'll say - but it doesn't function very well and a lot of stuff is broken, and links don't work, and all the photos are gone, and it's just a mess. And yeah, it was really consequential on Election Night when people were trying to find out who won and couldn't get this information for 15, 20 minutes, which I know might not sound like much, but it is hugely consequential if you are a campaign or if you are somebody interested in the results, like I was as a reporter. So man, it was just a mess. [00:20:54] Crystal Fincher: It was a mess. I was at KIRO doing Election Night coverage and it was a big challenge. Fortunately, their team was able to get the results from the alternate posts, so we had them before they were live on the website. But it's really a challenge. And especially at this point in time where there is so much bad faith information, misinformation about elections, the integrity of our elections, and what's happening. Unfortunately, that means that we need to do as great a job as possible at being transparent, at making sure that things work as expected, that we can explain what's happening and why it's happening, and provide some predictability and transparency in the process. And having that happen on Election Night is very suboptimal. We'll see what improvements they make to it. And we've seen rollouts of websites - these things are hard. It is not like you flip a switch and everything works. So I don't wanna devalue the work involved, but I do hope they reflect on the timing of this, the type of testing and rigor that they use to test this - especially for the kind of strain that is expected on a night like Election Night. I think we heard some of the reasoning was that - Well, you know, it just had a lot of traffic and that contributed to the collapse. Well, yeah, that's gonna be expected on Election Night. And I hope they are able to do a better job in the future - making sure that it can accommodate the infrequent but predictable heavy loads that the website is going to experience. [00:22:40] Erica Barnett: Well, I think in one way it was actually optimal - possibly - because I think it, you know, people have been complaining about this website for a while. I mean, when I first went to it - and I don't know, it's probably been a month or two now - I truly thought, and again, it's kingcounty.gov. I truly thought it was a, like a test website. Like it was sort of the interim version between the old website and the new one, and this was just like temporary. And then called and found out - no, this is the website. And I think there are just - there are so many things that are suboptimal and just bad about it. And I think that sometimes in my experience, the tech side of things tend to, you know, say things like - Well, it's just, you know, it's not the design, it's that you're just not used to using it, or you're not using it right, or there's nothing wrong, there's nothing to see here. And I think a website falling apart on Election Night that just really like pissed off a number of people outside the county might impel them to actually take some action on this thing, because it is infuriating to use. I mean, it is - just one quick example that, you know, that's emblematic - is you go to the website now, and one of the, it's sort of like "the top things people need." And one of them is like animal control. Another is a camera in rural King County that like is on some road in rural King County - I don't know who needs that, but I wouldn't put it in the top, you know, 10,000 things on that website that people are looking for. So hopefully this will bring some sanity back, 'cause I use that website pretty frequently and it is very frustrating to use. [00:24:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I also use it frequently. And we didn't talk about this part before, but yeah - I had the same thought as you. I thought it was an interim site that - okay, well, they - my read was - well, they were hoping to do some upgrades, but clearly they couldn't get them done in time. So this is the, you know, meantime, they just stripped it down to bare bones and just want to make sure it's functional. That was my read, my assumption - I didn't look very deeply into it besides just being frustrated that everything was hard to find and wasn't where it was before. But yeah, it was a challenge, these things often are. But that would also make me want to keep it as, these things happening as far away from elections as possible. Like, you know, let's implement changes in January or February instead of later in the year, you know, closer to the primary or general election if we're doing these things. And yes, it may be a bigger site-wide thing, but my goodness - if you're hoping that things land well with the public, this is certainly - elections are one of the most visible things that the county does. I would be surprised if there was something that generated more traffic to the website than the election site around election time. But we will see how that continues and hopefully they're able to get that together soon. Also want to talk about another elections-related story, and that was the story of the post office missing pickups from a ballot box that contained ballots in some races - one of them still is too close to officially call. What happened here? [00:26:21] Erica Barnett: Well, from what I understand, the post office just didn't pick up any mail from this one site - or sorry, from this one box for like a month. And I just read about it in The Seattle Times, probably like you did. And I got a tip about it and was gonna look into it, but you know, a one-person website, so I didn't get around to it - Times did. And yeah, it just sounds like they somehow messed up and didn't pick up any mail at this box. So there are 85 ballots, I believe, that are being counted now. Not enough to turn around Ron Davis's election prospects against Maritza Rivera in District 4, but still - 85 ballots is 85 ballots. When you're talking about margins of like 300 votes, every little bit counts. So this was pretty significant to find out about at the, you know, at the 13th hour, really. [00:27:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And then just reading about the process that occurs when this does happen. It looks like they were able to follow the process and get these ballots counted by verifying the dates and signatures on them, but certainly a conundrum here, and would love to see what's put in place to make sure that this doesn't happen again. Yeah, will be interesting to see. And the last thing I'll just say about these elections is - you alluded to a little bit earlier with talking about Teresa Mosqueda - it's not just her, but it's her staff. And in big cities - smaller cities and suburbs don't have council staff, but in Seattle, they do. And the role of staff is really important. It's going to be even more important because they're gonna hold the institutional knowledge. They do a lot of the policy work, preparation work, doing the research, interacting with community, doing constituent service. And a lot of them have been there for a while. They are absolutely valuable resources. Sometimes bureaucrats get a bad name for working in government service, but I just - seeing the work that they do, how instrumental they are to the process, particularly in support of elected officials who oftentimes just need good information and assistance to get stuff through the system. It's really important to have capable and competent bureaucrats. I think the City does have a number of them, and I think we're gonna see how important they are in the coming year. [00:29:04] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the City couldn't run without the deep state. I mean, truly. You need those people who've been there 20 years who like know Robert's Rules of Order in and out, and can write a script and, you know, for a city councilmember to read, and can write legislation and just do all the sort of grunt work that keeps things running. I mean, they, you know, staff gets maligned and they're always sort of subject to budget cuts because - who needs all these administrative people? But in a lot of cases, you really do need the administrative people because they're the ones that make the council meeting not look like chaos. [00:29:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And who help make legislation stand up to legal challenges and get things implemented in the way they were intended. It is really important and just wanted to say that I see them. And when - I'm thinking about Andrew Lewis, who was not reelected - that means that his staff has a lot of question marks too. And in a city as expensive to live in in Seattle, that is a harrowing thing. So elections do impact lots of people in lots of different ways. I do wanna talk about the budget, and action this week with the council pertaining to the budget. What did they do? [00:30:21] Erica Barnett: Well, they are still continuing to sort of hack away at Mayor Bruce Harrell's 2024 budget. And they have voted on a whole slew of amendments. I would say the headline, and surprisingly it has not been a huge headline, is that Kshama Sawant - outgoing councilmember, often does a lot of kind of performative stunty stuff that doesn't actually result in legislation - but she won on a big issue this week. She got $20 million - a very, very tiny increase, I think it was 0.01%. So 0.0001 to the JumpStart Tax to fund mental health care and mental health programs for students. And $20 million is a really big deal at a time when the City is anticipating big budget decisions next year, potentially budget cuts. And when a lot of these debates in the City budget are over $300,000 or $1.5 million, just these very tiny increments. So to me, that is the huge headline is that Kshama Sawant sort of won the budget as she is walking out the door. But other stuff in the budget this year includes ShotSpotter, which is the controversial proposal that Mayor Bruce Harrell has made for a couple of years running to put surveillance systems in neighborhoods to detect gunshots or things that sound like gunshots. A lot of criticism of that system, but it sounds like the council is going to finally give in - on a 5-4 vote most likely - and fund that. And City pay increases are still sort of outstanding because that work is happening in the background, but there's gonna need to be money for City employees to get pay increases. And there's a lot of other stuff kind of around the margins - Sara Nelson is getting some money for the City to subsidize private drug treatment for some folks. And then kind of looming in the background after they pass this budget - and this is another reason Teresa Mosqueda, as you mentioned, is sticking around - They've got to figure out some revenue solutions for next year, 2025, and beyond. So they're looking at other increases to JumpStart, a capital gains tax, and there was talk of a CEO excess compensation tax but it seems like that's not gonna raise very much money - so it's off the table for now. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: Well, it certainly is gonna be interesting to see how those conversations play out as this year progresses, this next year progresses. I know several of the candidates who were elected expressed curiosity at some of the revenue options but were notoriously hesitant to commit to supporting any particular option. And knowing that so much of the outside spending that came into these races during the campaign was fundamentally about resisting taxation and some of those efforts and proposals, it's gonna be interesting to see what actually does wind up passing, if anything. [00:33:58] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I - on that note, I will just say that a lot of candidates said that the City doesn't have a budget problem, it has a spending problem. And I think they're going to realize that the City actually does have a budget problem when they have to get in and actually deal with the budget. I don't think that - there's a lot of talk of, We're gonna audit the whole system and I wanna look at the whole budget. Well, good luck, that's not really possible. I mean, you have entire departments each with their own budget division - hashing out the budget, looking at the actual budget documents for any one department could be a job for a person for a year. So I think they're going to be, they're in for a bit of a rough awakening if they think that they can't raise any new revenues and that they can accomplish $250 million in budget reductions through cuts alone. So we'll see when that awakening takes place, but I think it will. [00:34:58] Crystal Fincher: Oh, I absolutely think it will. It is certainly one thing to have catchy and simple slogans and taglines and soundbites when you're running for office, but governing is a serious thing. It is actually harder than running the campaign. So we will see how this progresses. Now I also want to talk about this week - a couple of things when it does come to the potential raises for City workers - that they've been saying, Hey, it's really expensive to live in Seattle. We count on cost of living adjustments to help keep up, but even that is hard with inflation, the cost of living. We aren't making enough in the first place. We need more money. This is teeing up to become a major confrontation, really, with the mayor's office signaling that they're hesitant to give raises anywhere close to what workers are asking for. There may be labor actions taken. We will see what happens. But this week, one interesting thing came out in an email from the mayor's office. What did they send? [00:36:16] Erica Barnett: So an email went out to most City employees this week. And what it said was - I think the subject line was "Financial Self-care," something related to that. And what it said was basically - if you are struggling with money, maybe you should look at your spending. And it gave some examples of things that you can do to sort of reduce your costs in your day-to-day life. And one was pay yourself first, which is this sort of very - I would say for a normal person - very unrealistic idea that before you pay your bills, you should put money in savings or in investments. And I think it's self-explanatory why most people can't do that. People living paycheck to paycheck need to keep the lights on, need to pay their rent. And then another suggestion was that people consider - when making purchases, whether something is a want or a need - which again, I mean, there's just something so condescending about that and so out of touch with the way normal people make spending decisions. And like, sure, like, do I make impulse buys? Does everybody sometimes? Yes. But the advice in this email - not to sort of waste your money on frivolous stuff - hits really poorly at a time when City employees are saying, Look, we're not asking for raises, we're asking for a cost of living adjustment to deal with the fact that inflation went up 8% last year and continues to rise. And what that means is a dollar buys less. So it's just - it was very, very, very poorly worded and poorly timed, considering that City employees are literally talking about striking right now. And so I just, I was sort of blown away by it. And one of the reactions - it got a lot of reaction when I posted about this. And one of the most common reactions was - huh, this is interesting because Mayor Harrell is saying that we all need to work from the office at least three days a week as part of his downtown revitalization plan. And part of that plan is that we're gonna go out to eat at lunch, and we're gonna go out to get drinks after work. And I don't know - is that a want or need, Mayor Harrell? So it's - I think it hit really poorly with a lot of City employees. And I've gotten a lot of reaction from folks who received it, sort of saying - Thanks for pointing this out, this is ridiculous. [00:38:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I've also seen a lot of reaction to that. When you're saying - Hey, help me, I'm struggling, and it's, you know, the cost of living, inflation is just unreasonable - it's hard to keep up with. And when the cost of rent is going up, and childcare is going up, and groceries are going up, and people are feeling this in every way - to have the person who does have the power and authority to say, You know what, we will ease this a little bit. We will grant your cost of living adjustment. We already know that you have shortages, and we're burning you out with the amount of work that we're placing on you and the amount that we're not paying you. So we're going to ease that burden and address some of these work shortages, some of these staff shortages in areas that are critical to delivering essential services for residents of Seattle. Seems like there's precedent for thinking that way - we've talked about financial solutions with the police department to help address retention and staffing. Seems like that should apply to other departments, but somehow it doesn't here. And just doesn't seem to be landing with people very well. And just to be clear, right - it's not like financial education and financial planning tips are never warranted. But they are not an intervention or response to poverty. The problem with poverty is not poor people making bad decisions and that's why they're poor. It's that they don't have enough money. And wow, we just got a whole lot of new data on how effective giving people in poverty more money is, as opposed to all of these extra things that are not more money. If you want to reduce poverty, invest in the people who are experiencing it. And if we want a city that is resilient moving forward, if we want a city where we do take pride in paying people a living wage - meaning a wage where they can live in the city - we're gonna have to do better than this for City employees, certainly. Now I also wanna talk about what the prospect is, and what the outlook is for this pay increase. And there was something that happens that maybe makes that cost of living adjustment look a little questionable. What was that? [00:41:11] Erica Barnett: I believe you're talking about the firefighters' contract, which was sent to firefighters - members of the Fire Department - last week. And the votes on that are gonna be tallied soon. But basically what it said was the firefighters, if they vote on this, will agree to a sort of maximum annual wage increase of 4%, a minimum of 2%, which is quite a bit less than the other City workers were asking for, the Coalition of City Unions. And the sort of compromise or payback for that is that if inflation is above 4%, then the money that would be paid to workers getting an inflationary increase is gonna go into what's called a COLA bank. And so - like say inflation 6%, your wage increase is 4% - you get 2% in the COLA bank. If next year inflation is 1%, you can get some of that back. So your minimum increase will always be 2% for the life of the contract. So that's still 2% to 4%, which is not a whole lot of increase, particularly for workers whose pay has been falling further and further behind under their existing contract. But the thinking is that this could be sort of a foreshadowing of what Harrell is going to ultimately offer the rest of the city. So I think there's quite a bit of discontent around that. And again, there is talk of some sort of action. There have been practice pickets happening. And I don't have any special insight into whether the City workers would strike, but I know it's being discussed. They are not technically allowed to do that under their contract. So again, not sure what sort of action they're going to take, but I know that there is a lot of discontent with the idea of settling for a 2% to 4% wage increase at this point. [00:43:16] Crystal Fincher: I wanna shift a little bit and really talk about a story that you broke - a couple weeks ago, I feel like it was - that we also saw reported at The Seattle Times as new this week. What is going on in the City of Burien right now? [00:43:33] Erica Barnett: Oh man, the - well, I mean, just a very, very quick background - the City of Burien passed a ban on sleeping in public at night. And has meanwhile, been sort of pushing around this group of unsheltered people from place to place - And now has the legal authority to use the Sheriff's Office to do so. They have meanwhile, been sort of sitting on an offer of a million dollars from King County, which originally proposed sort of a land swap deal where a Pallet shelter could be built in downtown Burien. But of course the city rejected that, I think, primarily because it would be in sort of a visible location. They've been sort of hemming and hawing on what to do with this million dollars ever since. And we're talking about, I think that was over the summer - I believe in June or July - that they, it was in July, that they voted against using it for that shelter. And so now it's November and King County has said - Look, we have to use this money. Or you have to use this money or we're going to put it out for bid. And so they have until November 27th to do that. The City Manager, Adolfo Bailon - apologies if I am mispronouncing his name - but he essentially sat on this information for a week and did not tell most of the council that this sort of deadline had come up until a week into the four weeks that they have to figure out a new location. So meanwhile, I think the council has one more meeting before this deadline passes. And my guess is they're not going to come up with a solution since they haven't done so so far. And this money is just going to go back into King County and then they'll put it out for bid for other South King County cities to use. [00:45:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think - if people do want to catch up on what's happened, there has been no one following what's been happening in Burien with more rigor than you and PubliCola. So I would encourage people to catch up on what you have already covered. But just a little more context - this is happening with a very polarized council. There is a 4-3 moderate conservative council majority. The three members in the minority have been very vocally opposed to the way things have gone. This all kicked off because the county basically - they were trying to figure out how to deal with this as a city, were looking like they were going to embark on some illegal sweeps. The county executive's office basically said - Hey, looks like you're about to embark on illegal sweeps. Since you contract your police department through the Sheriff's department, we're just letting you know that the sheriffs cannot participate in an illegal sweep. This kicked off a lot of hemming and hawing by the council - ended up coming to what, I think, the county viewed as a reasonable compromise and offer for help that lots of cities would love to have. And they said - Okay, you're trying to deal with this. We'll help you with a million dollars, some Pallet shelters. You talked about the land swap deal - there's publicly owned land that is being leased to a car dealership, we'll accommodate for that. And basically you have land available to make this happen. We know you need more resources to adequately address this. We will help you with that. And the council majority basically refused to engage with that for a long time. So the county finally has gotten around to saying - Okay, this isn't just an offer out there forever. We need to put this money to good use, so do you wanna take it? And the city manager in Burien initially said, Hey, I didn't even see it. I had no idea this was happening. Turns out he did, he actually responded to the email. But it has been quite a trial and tribulation there, and so we'll have to see what's gonna happen. But it does look like basically an effort to sabotage any attempt to do anything but criminalize homelessness, which just feels so out of joint from where most people are on this topic. Even people who feel that - hey, eventually sweeps are justified, almost uniformly feel like, but we need to do all we can to make sure that we do transition people into housing if possible, that offers of shelter are made, that we don't just move the problem from one place to another. City is not engaged with that at all. They seem perfectly satisfied to just sweep people from one place to another, as has been documented by the sweeps that they did of one location - seeing the people just move to another location. Homelessness is a problem about the lack of housing. If you aren't doing anything to provide housing, you aren't doing anything to solve homelessness, unless you feel the visibility of it, and not the people who actually don't have homes and are dealing with everything associated with that, which is just a very, very, very hard way to live. So we'll see what continues to happen. What are the prospects for them taking this up? Do they still have the option to ignore it? [00:49:14] Erica Barnett: Well, do you mean taking up the offer for a million dollars? Well, I mean, certainly they have the option to ignore it. I mean, it will go away. I mean, I think that - I'm perhaps a little bit less charitable than you are in my assessment of what people want, just having watched all these meetings of people sort of screaming that these are - Seattle people are sending mobs of homeless people down to Burien and just this kind of very unrealistic, fantastical stuff that people say. But I think there's some magical thinking going on on the council as well. The city has just hired, just signed a contract - a no-bid contract - with a group called The More We Love that's run by one individual, a Kirkland mortgage broker named Kristine Moreland. And she has said that she has access to special resources that no one else does, and she can easily house and shelter people. And that it's just that all these other experienced homeless outreach providers have failed. And I think that is a fantastical notion because, as you said, there is not enough housing, there is not enough shelter. And generally what she does is put people into detox, which is a three to five day program that doesn't include any housing or treatment, or takes people to Seattle and puts them into Union Gospel Mission shelters. Those are two of the things that I am aware of her doing, neither of which is a solution. And one of which is just moving people out of Burien and into Seattle, which is not housing them. So I think that there's just, there's a lot of unrealistic thinking going on. And of course, there was an election in Burien as well. And two of the more progressive members will no longer be on the council next year - they've been replaced by people who agree more on this issue with the conservative council majority. So yeah, it's, you know, I don't expect the situation there to get any better on this issue, nor do I think that this new council is going to have more realistic notions of what's possible without additional resources. [00:51:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, certainly the election results there were definitely a move in the other direction. We saw King County GOP endorsed candidates like Kevin Schilling handily winning his race there. Now, some of the opponents were pretty new, didn't have many resources, but can pretty much see a continuation and perhaps even an acceleration of these policies that are very punitive and hostile towards the unhoused population. The last thing I wanna talk about today is an update on Sound Transit's fare enforcement policies and processes. We've talked about this before, you have covered this for quite some time. So now they're coming out with a new fare enforcement system. What are they going to do now? [00:52:32] Erica Barnett: Well, as far as I can tell, the main difference - they're going to be enforcing fares and this has been covered in the past, but there will be more opportunities for people to get warnings and things like that - the initial fines will be lower. But the main difference is that the fare enforcement people are now called fare ambassadors and they are not in security uniforms, which Sound Transit is saying is a significant change. I mean, I guess it does make things feel different if you have a person who is not in a uniform, but an orange vest, checking your fare. But ultimately, I mean, that's the big substantive difference. They say that this is gonna be more equitable, they're gonna check everybody on the train, but as you mentioned, I've been covering this for a long time and for years, they've been saying that their process is completely equitable and that they - it is essentially impossible for them to discriminate against anybody or target anybody because of their race or perceived socioeconomic status because they start at both ends of the train and they move to the middle. And there was a slide that they showed so many times that I started kind of making fun of it on PubliCola because, you know, it was just this very, you know, sort of bored recitation at every council, or sorry, at every Sound Transit meeting where they would say - You know, we start at both ends of the train, we work our way to the middle, it's completely equitable. So, you know, they're saying this is gonna be completely equitable too. I don't think that it is possible to have an equitable fare enforcement policy because I think fare enforcement hits different people differently. And if you can't pay it, eventually, you could go to court and get a misdemeanor on your record. So fare enforcement inherently and fares inherently are not equitable. So we'll see how it plays out in practice, but once you start enforcing fares, you have instituted an inequitable process because poor people are less likely to be able to pay fares, more likely to get caught without having paid their fare, and then more likely to be unable to pay the fines that will eventually start accruing. [00:54:50] Crystal Fincher: I have a major pet peeve - pet peeve is too minor a way to say it, but it probably comes through and I haven't overtly articulated it, but you know, in lots of things that I talk about - but people just taking action to take action, that is not a serious attempt to fix the problem that they say they're trying to fix. Whether I agree with what they're stating is a problem or their way that they're going about it - even if you take everything at face value, their solutions are not in any way adequate enough to address what they're saying is a problem. And so the momentum - we've heard Sound Transit board members talk about how important fare enforcement is - people are getting away with it and we need to collect these fares for our system. We - our budget depends on fare box recovery and if people aren't paying, then that's throwing our finances and our system into chaos. Which would make most people reasonably think - Okay, so if they're doing fare enforcement action and spending all of this money on these fare enforcement people, and instituting this basically entire administration dedicated to fare enforcement - one would think that the fines that they issue would be collected by Sound Transit. I was surprised to learn from your reporting before that that wasn't the case. And it seems like it still isn't the case under this new system, is that correct? [00:56:24] Erica Barnett: My understanding is - yes, that the fines go to the, go into the administration, into the court system, but, you know, I am not 100%, I have not looked into this. So please don't, please do some fact checking on this for me, 'cause I - maybe you can look into it, Crystal - but I'm pretty sure that, yeah, the fines don't go to Sound Transit. I mean, I think like big picture, Sound Transit does have some financial problems. A lot of them are related to the fact that they continue to provide service that is suboptimal for a lot of people. A lot of times trains are stopped because of incidents, escalators very often don't work. And the trains are running a lot slower now, they're more crowded because there's not enough cars and they're not running as frequently. And so the service has really suffered. And so - number one, it's not a great product right now. It could be a great product again, but you're sort of instituting fare enforcement at a time when the product itself is suboptimal. And second, they're planning the next expansion of the light rail system and a lot of the stuff they're doing, you know, in particularly in South Lake Union, for example, to appease Amazon and other companies in that area is moving stations around and making big changes that are going to cost money. And then on the flip side, eliminating stations like the Midtown Station that have huge constituencies, like all the people on First Hill that got robbed of a station in Sound Transit 1 when they cut the station there. So you're sort of putting the squeeze on people who might be your riders in the future and moving things around to appease big companies. So I don't know - I think a lot of people are frustrated with Sound Transit right now and focusing on, Oh my God, it's those damn, you know, fare evaders, as they call people who don't pay, they're the problem - just feels really off point right now. And, you know, I mean, I'm sure you've ridden light rail. It's noticeably slower recently because people, the drivers for one - I mean, one reason for that is that the drivers are slowing down in the Rainier Valley to avoid hitting people because Sound Transit put the trains at grade in the first segment of light rail. So yeah, it's just - it's not a great look. [00:59:05] Crystal Fincher: It's not a great look. And yes, I have ridden light rail recently. I've also ridden BART recently and LA Metro trains recently. And my goodness, is it just noticeable? If you know me, you've heard this rant, but Los Angeles, the car capital of the world, and Seattle actually started planning their light rail systems at the same time. And Seattle has wound up with a partial line that still has end points getting pushed off for decades, it seems like. And LA has built this vast network of multiple lines and everything in a city where it's not easy to get stuff done, where people have more of a connection to their cars, where it's harder to get around in other areas - so the lift of getting people to make that change seems heavier down there. And wow, we've just gotten bogged down in the Seattle process, it seems. But it seems like the main problem, what's underlying everything else, is that their - the people in charge of this system, the Sound Transit Board, are not regular transit riders. They don't seem to use the product that they're responsible for. And listening to them talk - most of them are, predominantly drive cars, they don't take transit often. And you can hear that in their comments, you can see that in how they are planning, or not planning, or the things that they're missing, as we progress here. So I certainly hope that we see more of a focus on appointing leaders to that board who understand the system and use it, and understand how important it is to their community and the relevance of their community, and how it needs to adapt to other communities. Yeah, it's really interesting. I'm thinking of a number of suburban leaders, whether it's Bothell or Covington - people wanting to improve the service, make it relevant for their community, but it is just been a big challenge. With that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 17th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on multiple platforms now - just search Erica and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and soon you'll be able to follow it on other platforms. You can find me on most platforms as @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar, be sure to subscribe and leave a review if you're able - to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos!  Melissa and Crystal discuss how Election Night results in Washington state aren't conclusive and can change due to our mail-in ballot system, how four County election offices were evacuated and whether this might explain low turnout trends. Then they dive into where Seattle City Council election results currently stand and the impact that enormous spending by outside interests had on voter communication. Looking outside Seattle, more encouraging progressive results appear to be taking shape across the state in Tacoma, Bellingham, Spokane, Snohomish County, Bellevue, Bothell, and more! The show wraps up with reflection on why celebrated Seattle Police Department Detective Denise “Cookie” Bouldin suing the City for decades of racism and gender bias from SPD management and colleagues is yet another indication of internal police culture not matching their publicly declared values. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.   Melissa Santos Melissa Santos is one of two Seattle-based reporters for Axios. She has spent the past decade covering Washington politics and the Legislature, including five years covering the state Capitol for The News Tribune in Tacoma and three years for Crosscut, a nonprofit news website. She was a member of The Seattle Times editorial board from 2017 to 2019, where she wrote columns and opinion pieces focused on state government.   Resources Digging into Seattle's Budget Process with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget from Hacks & Wonks   “4 election offices evacuated in Washington state; fentanyl found at 2” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Business-backed Seattle council candidates take early leads” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle council incumbents still trail in latest election results” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Business-backed groups spend big on Seattle council races” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Tacoma to consider new tenant rights measure on Nov. 7 ballot” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “Tacomans deciding on progressive renter protections” by Lauren Gallup from Northwest Public Broadcasting   “The 4 biggest takeaways from election night results in Tacoma and Pierce County | Opinion” by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune   “Bellingham voters consider minimum-wage hike, tenant protections” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “Lisa Brown leads incumbent Nadine Woodward in Spokane mayoral race” by Mai Hoang from Crosscut   “Controversial Sheriff with Right-Wing Ties Faces Voters in Washington State” by Jessica Pishko from Bolts   “Johnson defeats Fortney in sheriff's race, new ballot drop shows” by Jordan Hansen from Everett Herald   “Pioneering Black detective sues SPD, alleging racism, gender discrimination” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, it was a special one. Our producer and special guest host, Shannon Cheng, chatted with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget about currently ongoing City of Seattle budget process. The conversation ranged from the fight over the JumpStart Tax to why ShotSpotter is more egregious than you thought. This is the first show that I actually have not hosted on Hacks & Wonks and Shannon did a fantastic job. It's a really informative and interesting show, and I highly suggest you listen. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. [00:01:41] Melissa Santos: Hi, Crystal. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Well, good to have you back on this Friday following general election results in Washington state. We have a lot to talk about, a lot that's interesting. I think the first thing I wanna talk about is just the nature of elections and results. As a reminder to people - for so long, so many of us were used to going to a polling place, voting, getting election results on Election Night. We still get that from a lot of other places in the country. It does not work like that here in Washington - and particularly for the City of Seattle, some other, especially major metropolitan areas - where there's, you see differences in where different demographics typically vote in the timeline when ballots are out. What races look like on the first night can look very different than what the ultimate results show. How do you approach this? [00:02:39] Melissa Santos: Well, so I basically - especially in Seattle races - I try to put a caveat at the top of any story I write on Election Night or the next day, sometimes even Friday of election week saying, Races are known to swing by 10 or 12 points in Seattle - this could change. It will change. It could change dramatically, essentially. So that's, I think, what we're seeing here. I mean, as of right now, when we're actually recording - we don't have Thursday's results yet. So we only have a very limited batch of ballots, especially because of something else we're probably gonna talk about later - there was limited counting in some counties, including King County, yesterday and fewer ballots released because of a scare they had at the elections office. So we just don't have a lot of information. Election night - like half the ballots maybe are being reported, so that's just a ton of room for results to change. And we have seen that repeatedly in Seattle, especially when it comes to progressive candidates looking like they're down, and then - oh look, they won by four points, three points, two points. So this happens a lot. And that's just a good caveat to keep in mind as we're talking about election results the week of the election in Seattle. [00:03:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and as you said, we are actually recording this on Thursday morning. Viewers will start to hear this on Friday, but we don't have many results - we might as well talk about it now. The reason why we have even fewer results than we thought, or fewer ballots counted, is that there were some wild things that happened at some elections offices yesterday. What happened? [00:04:10] Melissa Santos: So four county elections offices in Washington state, including in King County, received an unknown powder substance in envelopes that were delivered to the election office. And so the King County Elections office in Renton, that does all this counting, was evacuated for three hours the day after the election - in which counting was not happening because they had HazMat there, they had the Fire Department there, they had the police there checking to make sure this wasn't something super dangerous, that there wasn't a chemical attack, essentially, against the election offices. And in Spokane County, they got a similar thing and they actually didn't - I don't think they released results yesterday at all, actually, in Spokane. Or at least it was very delayed and limited. So in King County, they released many fewer ballots, and counted many fewer ballots, and reported fewer than they had expected to on Wednesday, the day after the election. And then also Skagit and Pierce County offices got mysterious packages. And two of them - in King County and Spokane, it was, there were traces of fentanyl. We're still waiting for more information, so there was some sort of fentanyl in there. Not clear about the other two - might've been baking powder in Tacoma, according to one report I saw, so. But in any case, this is a threat that people are sending stuff that is very threatening. I mean, everyone remembers it was around - Anthrax scares and this and that. So when you get in the envelope as a public servant like that - you're worried it could kill you, it could kill your colleagues, and then you're gonna not keep counting ballots probably. Or your coworkers across the building are gonna stop counting ballots - and that's what happened. [00:05:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And people are on heightened alert for a number of different reasons. These bring to mind some of the increased attacks that we've seen that seem to have anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bias. There have been envelopes of powder mailed to synagogues in our state. So this has a lot of people wondering - are these ties to election denialists? Is this someone with some other grievance? But people are on heightened alert about that. King County counted about half as many ballots yesterday as they originally intended to, so we have really abbreviated results. The other factor that is a challenge that is not standard - not what we normally see - is turnout is low, is trending really low. And weirdly, it was trending above where we were a couple of years ago until Election Day - 'cause we can track how many ballots are received each day, how that compares - so it was actually up by a few percentage points. But on Election Day, really, turnout seems to have cratered. We don't know why. Again, the results being released - it's so early, so we just may not have the full picture. Maybe people just voted in a really late flux and we don't know that yet. There's just a lot that we don't know. But right now, turnout seems to be trending pretty low in a different way than we've seen before, at least so far. So we're not sure what that means, who might not have turned out, is this gonna wind up low? We just have a lot that we still need to see, both in results and in just the ballots received, and what that means for turnout. So with that said, let's start off talking about the City of Seattle. We had several council races. And I guess thinking, going through the results - overall, the more moderate candidate was leading pretty significantly in a lot of cases on Election Night. Again, as we talked about earlier, several of these races are still within the bounds where it's possible these races could change. And the person who ultimately winds up winning could be different than the person currently leading in several of these races - if ballots trend how they traditionally trend in the city - there's been a few different folks who've done some public analysis of this. But right now in District 1, Rob Saka - this looks to be one of the races that looks pretty conclusive, that Rob Saka currently holds a pretty commanding lead over Maren Costa. In District 2, Tanya Woo is currently leading Tammy Morales. This is a closer race and one that is within the margin where we see late ballots overtake what the early results were. In District 3, Joy Hollingsworth - this seems like a pretty settled race - seems to have prevailed over Alex Hudson. District 4, we have Maritza Rivera leading Ron Davis. This is one that is at the margin of where races come back - if ballots trend in the same way as they had before, Ron could end up eking out a win. If they don't, maybe he comes up a little short, but definitely a race we anticipate tightening up. In District 5, Cathy Moore holds a pretty commanding lead - this looks like one where it's beyond the range of kind of the bounce-back of ballots over ChrisTiana ObeySumner. And in District 6 - [00:09:34] Melissa Santos: District 6 is Dan Strauss, and that is really, really close, with Dan Strauss and Pete Hanning. And we actually saw Strauss, who's an incumbent, and is the more leftward candidate in that race - I mean, of the candidates in that race. [00:09:47] Crystal Fincher: Of the candidates in that race. [00:09:49] Melissa Santos: Not really the most leftward councilmember that is on the ballot necessarily, but in this race he is the more progressive of the two. He was down two points on Election Night, but now it's less than one percentage point. And that's just with the limited ballots we saw on Wednesday. So that's an example of how much you can switch there - we saw about a percentage point gain in a very close race. So I suspect Dan Strauss will actually win his race and be reelected, but we will see. [00:10:18] Crystal Fincher: It would be shocking if he didn't wind up winning this. And in District 7, we have Andrew Lewis and Bob Kettle, with Bob Kettle currently in the lead over Andrew Lewis. This is another one where it is still within the range that this is too close to call. We need to see further results. And if again, ballots trend in the same way as they've trended - particularly in 2021, but also in 2019 - then Andrew Lewis could wind up winning. This week is gonna be interesting with results because we typically get a daily update at between 4p and 5p, depending on the county. And King County - it's typically 4 p.m. But Friday is a holiday, so we won't get updates on Friday. Today, Thursday, will be the last day of updates. And then the next day that we get an update on the vote totals will be Monday. So Monday will probably be a very conclusive day, a day that shows whether people are on track to make it, where a lot of the late ballots are going to be in the tally - because the counting continues over the weekend, even though they don't release the results until Monday. So we'll see what that is. But a lot of races that are currently too close to call, even though if you've seen some other media outlets, particularly some columnists - I think Danny Westneat had a column, that was like - Oh, the progressive era in Seattle is over or something like that - which I think certainly the early results are different than even earlier results that we've seen in prior races, different than even in the primary, I think we would say. So there is something afoot here, and there's certainly going to be a different council with one, so many new candidates. But there's gonna be a new composition on the council, certainly. But saying what that composition is going to be with so many of these races still in the air, I think it's premature to say at this time, and we'll still see. We just don't know about the turnout and don't wanna mislead people, have to rewrite headlines. I think you're one of the more responsible journalists when it comes to setting appropriate expectations and making sure you don't overstate what the results are saying. [00:12:45] Melissa Santos: I mean, I think the one thing you can say, that I got from Danny's column, that I can guarantee will be correct is you will not have Kshama Sawant on the council anymore. And she has been one of the sort of firebrands on the council, very - has strong views that she doesn't shy away from and doesn't - whatever dynamic that is on the council, some people don't like it, some people do like it - that she just says what she wants to do and doesn't kind of do as much backroom compromise sometimes on certain issues. That's gone. So you don't have a Socialist on the council anymore - that is happening - 'cause she didn't run for re-election. There wasn't a chance for her to lose. So either way, that was gonna be different. But a couple of the moderate candidates we were talking about, I'm not really sure which way they'll vote on some of the issues that typically define Seattle moderates. And for me, Cathy Moore comes to mind. She won by - I mean, you can say Cathy won at this point - it was about 40 points. So that is not going to be, that's not going to happen for ChrisTiana ObeySumner. But Cathy, during election interviews, was a lot more forthright actually about taxes, saying - I disagree with the business community actually, that we probably need more tax revenue. And so she was much more open on the campaign trail about the notion of taxing businesses to close the City's budget deficit. And this is one of those issues that typically defines sort of the Seattle centrist moderates, business-friendly candidates - is having a lot more reticence about taxing businesses. Usually the candidates won't say - Absolutely not under any circumstances. But they'll say - We need to do an audit. I'm not, I mean, some of them actually will say, I don't think we have a budget deficit - in the case of Bob Kettle, I think that was something he said regularly, despite what the revenue projections do say. But Cathy Moore was a lot more nuanced on that topic. And also on zoning, potentially, and being willing to have more dense zoning in certain areas. I'm not sure that she'll vote the way - it remains to be seen. People can say things on the campaign trail and do totally different things, so we'll see. But she was fairly consistent about being sort of more on the liberal side of certain issues in that respect. Joy Hollingsworth, who has, I think, pretty definitively come out ahead in District 3 - this is Sawant's district. You know, she's a really - she's just a really compelling personality too. I mean, and I'm not saying this in a negative way - you talk to Joy, you feel like she's listening. She's a good candidate on the campaign trail. I saw her canvassing a lot - like in person, a fair amount - 'cause I live in that district. And her campaign sent out a lot of communications. She had the benefit of independent money, which we will talk about soon, I think, as far as more outside spending benefiting her campaign. So there were more mailers sent out - not even necessarily by her campaign, but on her behalf. And I just don't know if she's a traditional candidate. And she would say this and has said this - When am I the centrist candidate? I'm a queer, cannabis-owning business owner, you know, who's Black, and I just don't, when am I like the right-wing candidate here? So I mean, maybe doesn't fit the profile of what people think of when you're talking about sort of centrist candidates. And again, has done a lot of work on cannabis equity and equity issues, I think, that also helped her relate to a lot of voters in her district. Well, Rob Saka, I think, is more - who I think is pretty clearly winning in District 1 - is probably the most traditional, sort of more business-backed candidate who's skeptical of taxes, skeptical of how the City's spending its money, and then also had a lot of big business backing on independent spending. And is sort of more - we need to hire more cops, more in the traditional line of what you're thinking of as a centrist candidate. And he is going to be replacing a more progressive councilmember in Lisa Herbold. But, you know, they basically have Saka in that mold, clearly. And then the other two races that are decided already, it's not totally clear that it's some - it's gonna be a, exactly what kind of shift it's gonna be. And in fact, Cathy Moore is replacing a more moderate on the council anyway. So a lot is still dependent on what - the results we still don't have. And also, one of the more progressive members on the council is Teresa Mosqueda, who is running for King County Council and is likely to ultimately win that race, and that's gonna be an appointment process, where - to replace her on the council. So who that is - you could end up with a fairly progressive council, potentially, in some respects. If all of these races switch to progressive suddenly in the late results, which certainly may not happen. But it's just a little premature on Election Night to necessarily say the council's going to be way less progressive than it was, I think, potentially. That's all. [00:17:40] Crystal Fincher: No, I completely agree with that. We've talked about on the show - if you know me personally, we have definitely talked about this in person - but painting, you know, the media narrative out there, that - Oh, it's the super progressive council, you know, who's always battling with the mayor, and we want a change of direction. I'm always asking, define what that direction is, because we did not have a progressive council. There were different people in different positions on the council - certainly had progressives on it, but a number of moderates on it. And in this change, as you said - in District 1, I think it's very fair to say that that moved in a more moderate direction. District 5, I think that's moving in a more progressive direction, everything on balance. [00:18:30] Melissa Santos: And if Ron Davis wins in District 4 - which that district has been super swingy in the past because it has - I think university students is a factor, sort of, I do think there's a late turnout surge there in a lot of years, in some years, maybe that's greater than some districts. If he wins, you're going to be replacing Alex Pedersen, who is one of the more - certainly centrist, some would say conservative - but center candidates, and so you'd have a much more liberal person in that respect on, I think, both taxes, on criminal justice, I think on also zoning, definitely zoning, Ron Davis is like the urbanist candidate - is kind of what he's known as, and having worked with FutureWise and these organizations and in advocacy, sort of behind-the-scenes roles. So yeah, that would be, kind of, undermine the narrative to me. If you replace Alex Pedersen with Ron Davis, I'm not sure the progressivism-is-gone narrative exactly will hold up, so that's - but again, we would need some big swings for these things to happen. I'm not trying to act like you're going to get all these progressives. It definitely was a good night for business-backed, sort of, more centrist candidates on Election Night. [00:19:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely, I agree with that. And I think if Maritza Rivera ends up doing that, that's basically a wash on what their representation does - that looks like they have continued with what they generally had. And didn't move in a more progressive direction, but certainly did not get more moderate or conservative than what was already there, I think. I think there are two buckets of candidates that we're looking at, as you alluded to before. I think that Rob Saka, if Bob Kettle were to wind up prevailing, if Maritza Rivera were to wind up prevailing - those, I think, are most firmly in the traditional moderate conservative, very skeptical of taxation, very supportive of carceral solutions, more punitive solutions, lots of talk about hiring and supporting police, different answers to different issues, often involving public safety elements. I think that's fair to say. I don't think most people would put Cathy Moore, Joy Hollingsworth in that same category. I think Tanya Woo is a bit of a toss-up. This is another race where, I think, next to Dan Strauss, the next most likely candidate of what looks the way ballots traditionally go, even with some wiggle room - Tammy Morales, the way ballots trend in Seattle, certainly has a path to finishing in the lead. There is definitely a difference between those two candidates, but I think Tanya Woo has certainly expressed some reservations for taxation, has certainly expressed her support for public safety solutions - Maybe she falls somewhere in the middle there. It seems like she's not as aggressive as some of the other candidates and their zeal for those solutions, but she has signaled that she's open to them. So I think that's a question mark if it goes the Tanya Woo route. But this is a race that is definitely too close to call at this point in time for the way Seattle ballots trend. So that's Seattle. Let's talk a little bit more about the money, which you have written about - basically, everybody wrote about. We have not seen spending of this magnitude in Seattle City Council races since the Amazon money bomb that we saw in 2019. What happened with outside money in this race and what impact do you think it had? [00:22:34] Melissa Santos: So originally in 2019, there was a big - originally, that's not that long ago, I understand, but in recent history of Seattle elections - the Chamber of Commerce had a PAC that was spending a lot on behalf of the business-preferred candidates. And Amazon gave a million dollars plus to that - a million of it right at October, I think, in 2019. And that kind of - especially, Sawant in her race, again, Socialist councilmember, was saying Amazon's trying to buy the election. And then there was a sense that left voters turned out citywide even to kind of object to that. There was one, something that I think a lot of observers thought happened that year. And that one might have helped fuel this surge of left-leaning voters after the initial vote count as well. And also, Trump was in office. There was a lot of sort of motivation, I think, of progressives to kind of vote and make themselves heard wherever they could during that era. Okay, so this year - your original question - this year, we didn't have a chamber PAC doing all of the money. It wasn't all relayed through this chamber PAC. It was different. There were all these little political action committees called Neighbors of this Neighborhood. It was Downtown Neighbors Committee, Elliott Bay Neighbors Committee, and then University District Neighbors Committee. So it sounds, you know, those innocuous, sweet-sounding PAC names, right? But they were all supporting the candidates that were preferred by the, I mean, the Chamber and the Downtown Seattle Association. And they spent a fair amount of money. I mean, in the - I don't think that I had all the receipts when I did the calculations on Sunday, so there's a few more that have come in since then. But I mean, it was $300,000 almost for Maritza Rivera. And when I say for, I mean, a lot of it was spent opposing Ron Davis, but all benefiting Maritza - either in direct support from these external groups that were saying, Vote for this person, or, you know, saying, Don't vote for this person, her opponent, the more left-leaning candidate in that race. So that's quite a bit of money for one race, one district race, you know, you're talking about. And then we saw that for support for Rob Soka as well. And they were some of the similar groups where - there's overlap in who is supporting these PACs, right? Landlords organizations, there were builders and construction and realty interests. And there were - the Realtors PAC actually gave separately to a few candidates like Tanya Woo and Bob - okay, I shouldn't say gave. Let me back up. The Realtors PAC, the National Realtors PAC, actually spent its own money separately from these Neighborhood groups to support Tanya Woo and Bob Kettle. And so you just saw that outside PAC money was coming in. And that was, you know, a lot more than the leftward union side spent this year by a significant margin to kind of help support these candidates. So, I mean, at the end you had $1.5 million almost spent and more than $1.1 million of that, maybe $1.2 million, was from the business sort of backed interest sort of pouring money from outside into these races, supporting their preferred candidates. [00:25:53] Crystal Fincher: So I think - one, something that gets missed or I've seen a lot of questions about - so people are like, Okay, there's a lot of money. Corporations have a lot of money. How does that impact races? What does that mean when it comes to these campaigns and when it comes to what voters see? [00:26:11] Melissa Santos: So what you're paying for is communication. What they are paying for is communication. They're paying for mailers that go to voters, they're paying for TV or radio ads in some cases - maybe not radio this year, but it's, you know, this is some of the things that independent expenditures pay for. Online ads - so reaching voters to tell them about the candidate. And this is what campaigns do. That's the whole point of a campaign. Except when you have someone from outside doing it also, it just really widens your impact as a candidate - even though they don't coordinate, they're not involved together - it still will help get your message out to more people if you have supporters doing this on your behalf and buying mailers. I mean, I live in District 3 and most of the mailers I got were from Joy Hollingsworth's campaign, but I did get another mailer from an independent expenditure committee. And this was one that also was like - You like weed, vote for Joy Hollingsworth. Literally, that's what it said. I wish I was not kidding. So, I mean, again, that's - again, muddying the who's progressive and who's not a little. I mean, the mailers contribute to that, but anyway. And I got one mailer from Alex Hudson's campaign. So it just was like 5-1 on the communications I got from Joy Hollingsworth just to my own house. And so that's just an example of - even though only one of them was independent spending, you know, you can have a lot more mailers come and reach someone on behalf of a candidate if you have this outside money paying for it. [00:27:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and communication is really everything. I think, you know, most people know I do this kind of work during the day, this podcast is an extra thing, this is not the main thing that I do. But it really all comes down to communication. Like you talked about before, there are things that the campaign can do to directly communicate with voters - phone calls, canvassing is the most effective thing they can do. And if a candidate and their campaign is on the campaign trail doing that, that is certainly generally a really positive thing for their campaign and one of the most effective things that you can do to win votes. But Kshama Sawant is notorious and the DSA - people passionate about Kshama are notorious for mounting really formidable, substantial ground games where they are covering most of the district. Most candidates are not knocking on most of the doors in their district. They're knocking on, you know, a pretty small percentage of them. And even though to them and their supporters - they see the candidate talking all the time, attending events every night - you're only reaching 15, 20% of the people in the district probably. And so the other 80% of voters have not heard anything directly, have been busy living life. The thing that many candidates don't realize is that the hardest thing isn't getting them to understand that you're better than your opponent, especially for candidates who have not run for office before. The hardest thing to do is to let voters know that you exist overall. Most voters don't know that candidates exist. Most voters don't know that there's an election coming until they see the ballot arrive in their mailbox. People, like a lot of the people who listen to Hacks & Wonks - we're not the normal ones. We've talked about this before on this show. Most people do not pay attention to the news, to candidates, to elections as much as we do. That's really important to remember when it comes to this, because that spending - the type of communication, whether it's mail, the digital video ads that you see, cable TV ads, banner ads, text messages. One, that all costs money. And so having money enables you to do more of that. And getting that in front of voters is generally the most meaningful exposure that they have to candidates - that's how they're learning about a lot of them. So if they are bombarded with information from one candidate, they hear predominantly about one candidate - usually their communications talk about how wonderful the candidate is, all the wonderful things that they're saying or planning to do, or the version of that that they're spinning in that communication - that makes a big difference. And that's how people get to know who the candidates are. If someone isn't doing much of that, they can't win. That's kind of just a structural Campaign 101 thing. So again, talked about this on the show before - if you know me, we've definitely talked about this. Sometimes when people are making sweeping pronouncements about - This narrative clearly won the day and this is what voters are saying - that may be the case in a race where there's robust communication coming from all sides, where the amount of money spent is a lot closer with each other on both sides. But in these races where one candidate is outspent by hundreds of thousands of dollars and the communication that that equates to, you rarely see those candidates win in any circumstance, regardless whether the one outspending is moderate, conservative, progressive, what kind of message they have - if it's good or bad, it can be really mediocre, it can be pretty bad. If you spend and communicate that much and so much more than your opponent, that in and of itself usually is enough to win, which is why people talk about the influence of money and the communication that that buys being corrosive or toxic or such an issue, because that in and of itself is oftentimes enough to move enough voters to win the campaign. [00:31:57] Melissa Santos: And we should mention - Seattle has a Democracy Voucher system and I think all of the candidates, I think all of the candidates use Democracy Vouchers. Crystal can correct me if I'm wrong. But certainly some of the business backed ones receiving outside money also were limited - this limits their spending as a campaign, right? So the outside money takes on an even bigger role when each of the candidates can spend - I mean, gosh, the limit is, it starts at like $90,000, then it goes up if you all raise a lot of money. But you're limited, you're not spending more than $150,000, or $125,000, or something as a campaign. I forget the exact limits, but somewhere like around there or even lower. And then you have - so think about that - the campaign spending, we say $115,000 and really can't spend more. And then someone else is spending almost $300,000, right? So - separately - so you're having these, sometimes it's gonna be the majority of money in a race because the third party committees are not limited in how much they can raise and how much they can spend. So that's how you can get millions and millions of dollars. This year, it wasn't millions, but it was more than a million backing a certain slate of candidates. And that gets a big impact when you have fairly low-cost campaigns and everyone's limited to that to a certain degree. [00:33:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So I think that is the picture of Seattle races at this point in time. I think it is fair to say that even if a number of the candidates come back, I think it's an over-pronouncement to say that there was a broad shift in direction one way or another. But I think it's absolutely fair to say that no matter what the results end up being, they're not going to be celebrated by progressive candidates, that moderates are going to wind up happier than progressives are gonna wind up with these results - in the city of Seattle. But I wanna talk about elsewhere in the state because I think the broad picture in the state - even though Seattle's likely to dominate the media conversation - that the picture in the rest of the state was more positive for progressive people than it has been in quite some time, that we see trends moving further in a Democratic and progressive direction, particularly in purple and red cities in some of the many metro cities. So Seattle, the biggest city in the state there, moved and had their results. But looking at Tacoma, looking at Spokane - these are two cities that seem to have moved definitively to the left in the composition of their councils, in Spokane's case - including the mayoral race - and also with some ballot initiatives. So starting with Tacoma - what's happening in Tacoma? [00:34:47] Melissa Santos: Well, they do have a measure on the ballot that's about sort of renter protections, which actually looks like it might prevail. It was down a little bit on Election Night, but again, we don't have a lot of results from Pierce County yet, and it's super close right now. And given the way the ballots so far have sort of trended, even with this limited amount of ballots released, I suspect that this sort of measure to enact a lot more protections for renters against eviction - and I'm blanking a little on some of the details of it - but that's sort of a priority for more liberal voters and certainly policy makers. That looks like it may pass still, still uncertain. But you also - what I thought was interesting, you know - you had, I'm just making sure I did not, two days ago with my Tacoma results, but it looked like Jamika Scott was doing really well and likely to win her race in Tacoma. And Jamika has run for mayor before and she's sort of a known, you know, pretty serious policy person, I think, in Tacoma on advocating for ways of getting rid of systemic racism. I mean, getting rid of it would be difficult, obviously, but sort of ways to mitigate and kind of make lives better for people who traditionally have not benefited from our systems. And she was really active with, or I mean, leader of the Tacoma Action Collective, which has been a group that's been sort of protesting different institutions in Tacoma, as far as their treatment of Black people and treatment of people of color more broadly, I think, as well. But especially with police brutality. This is someone who has been kind of consistently saying, We need some change in our system. And she's being elected, and people like her message in Tacoma - enough of them - to really catapult her into office, it looks like. And so that's something that was interesting. We saw Olgy Diaz, who is an appointed councilmember - oh gosh, no, she won an election by now - has she-- [00:36:51] Crystal Fincher: No, she was appointed, and she's running for her first actual election now, following the appointment. And she just took the lead. She was narrowly down on Election Night. Again, the same caveats apply - that that Election Night is a partial tally. It is not a result. So on the initial tally, she was down just by a smidge. Now she is actually leading. And just with the way ballots trend, it looks like that lead will continue to grow. So you had the more progressive candidates, certainly, in both of those races prevail. I think interestingly, particularly in Jamika's race - Jamika was not endorsed by The News Tribune, which has been very consequential in endorsing folks. And despite that - and I think, as a credit to the work that Jamika has been doing in community for a while and the coalition that Jamika built - speaking directly to issues that are impacting so many people. And a lot of times speaking meaningfully to communities, as you said, that have not traditionally been served very well by government. And really inspiring a coalition to rally around her, to vote in support of her, to turn out for that. I think that was helpful. In the same way, the Tacoma for All tenant protection measure, which had a storied path to the ballot - the City of Tacoma was basically looking to put a competing, less impactful measure that did less than this initiative did - looked like that was motivated by some of the opposing forces who didn't wanna see this measure prevail. They ended up going to court over it and the process wound up being flawed. So this wound up being the only measure - the citizens' initiative - on the ballot. And that attracted a ton of outside spending - the realtors, a number of landlord organizations, developer organizations spent a lot - hundreds of thousands of dollars in opposition of this initiative. And for - one, to be as close as it is, given all that spending, is pretty miraculous and I think goes to show the depth of the problem and how extremely it is felt to have this much support. But it looks, based on the way that ballots traditionally trend, like it's on track to eventually take the lead and win. So this is not the only initiative - there are others across the state, including other tenant protection initiatives that are speaking to what's - the large percentage of renters in the state are facing the seeming imbalance between how landlords can technically treat tenants and how important it is to put more safeguards around. And I think generally it's not controversial to say that treating being a landlord like any other business is not good for society when we're talking about a basic need for people. And putting more protections around whether the timelines of being able to raise rent, how you can evict people, the kind of notice that's required, and assistance that may be required. If you are forcing someone to move out, the issue of economic evictions, or just putting someone out - not because they did anything, but just because they want to earn more money from that property - are things that people are willing to revisit across the state. And I think a lot of people can learn that lesson. The other thing, just - I, as someone who does this for a living, get really excited about - that we're seeing in Tacoma and play out elsewhere in the state, is that sometimes these initiatives come and I'm speaking as a consultant, so obviously this happens - it has a lot of good results sometimes - but this wasn't the result of consultants getting around, establishment party entities saying, We want to put an initiative on the ballot, what should it be? And deciding what that's going to be in rallying support. This was something that truly did come from the community. This was a response from people in the community to problems that people in the community were having. They got together, they made this happen, they knocked on doors and advocated for it. This was not funded by an outside source - anything like that. And I think those are wildly successful. I think we've also seen this with the Tukwila Raise the Wage initiative that was successful that the Transit Riders Union did - that kind of model, which oftentimes is a reaction to inaction sometimes by people in power, which is frustrating to a lot of people, not seeing the issues that they feel are most important being addressed. We're having another very viable path with municipal initiatives being initiated, not just by the same old players with money, but people in community learning how to advocate and move policy themselves. I think that's a really powerful thing. We're seeing that across the state and I think we're gonna see more of it. I think that's a positive thing. [00:42:24] Melissa Santos: Yeah, Bellingham looks poised to raise its minimum wage as a city. And they passed a measure that actually - they've been doing tenant protections as a city council, but I think that what they look on track to pass - I should say the minimum wage is leading, I should say. I guess I'd have to look just close at the results. But they're on track to pass something that requires landlords to help tenants relocate if they raise their rent by 8% or more. I mean, that's like a pretty - Bellingham is a fairly liberal city, a lot of college students from Western and all this. But that's a level, that's like sort of testing out new policies at a city level that I don't think we've - I don't think Seattle requires the landlords to do rent - well, anyway, it is kind of, I'm rambling now, but it is kind of some creative, interesting stuff happening in some of these cities that is very on the progressive edge. And Spokane's mayor looks like they're going to be replaced with a Democrat - Lisa Brown, who used to be the state Senate majority leader and has been working in Governor Inslee's administration as Commerce Director. And so that's a big change there too. And that is certain - I think that is a very clear contrast in candidates where you have some voters rebuking the sort of far-right ties potentially of the mayor. Crystal has probably been following this more than me, but there was a big controversy recently with the mayor of Spokane sort of engaging with Matt Shea, who is like - oh my God, I forget all of this. [00:43:56] Crystal Fincher: Domestic terrorist, an advocacy, an advocate of domestic terrorism, someone who was planning to partake himself. [00:44:02] Melissa Santos: Yeah - who, an investigation that was commissioned by the State Legislature when Matt Shea was a legislator found that he engaged in acts of domestic terrorism. The current mayor were kind of hobnobbing with that, became an issue in that race. And voters are saying, Let's try something different - it looks like in Spokane with a more Democratic mayor. So that is a different than maybe what progressives might be seeing in Seattle. You're seeing other cities have sort of different results. [00:44:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This was one where there's - in Seattle, it's on the centrist to progressive spectrum. This was a clear Democrat versus far-right Republican who did hobnob with Matt Shea, who attended - Matt Shea, who now is well-known as someone who was found to engage in domestic terrorism, to support a variety of far-right, extremist, insurrectionist type beliefs. Nadine Woodward appeared at one of his events, hugged him, seemed to be hobnobbing with his people. And even after that was palling around with Moms for Liberty - which are notoriously anti-LGBTQ, particularly anti-trans - candidates pushing for policy, pushing for book bans in school districts across the nation, basically. So there was a clear contrast here. These issues were front and center, and voters made a clear choice here and made the decision to change direction. And there're also - three of the four Democratic councilmembers are leading in Spokane. And so this is definitely moving in a more Democratic direction in Spokane, which is a really big deal. We saw similar in Tacoma. We were looking at a lot of suburbs - I mean, looking at the Eastside, just in King County - so many of those races. Now, Bellevue may have a more progressive council than Seattle. We've seen in a number of these cities, whether it be Bothell or others, where they have moved on affordable housing policy, transit and transportation, mobility policy in ways that Seattle has not. They seem to be outdoing Seattle when it comes to some of the implementation of progressive policy that lots of people have been asking for in the city of Seattle. Other cities have been moving beyond them and it seems like, in those cities, voters have responded well. There has been vigorous opposition to these, we hear reporting about pushback to expanding zoning and the types of housing that's able to be built in all areas basically. But those debates were had and it looks like in most of these situations where there were competitive candidates fielded, they prevailed. So I think that Seattle certainly looks one way. A lot of the state has really, really positive signals and directions. And as someone who works in elections, the map for what's possible in Washington state, I think, has expanded even more with this cycle. And there are some absolute blueprints to look at moving beyond to other cities, whether it's kind of party supported, establishment supported, well-funded efforts or more grassroots initiatives - that there are multiple routes now to passing policy that helps more people and especially the people who need the help most. So we will see what that is. Also in some pretty high profile races, like the Snohomish County Sheriff, where we had someone who billed themselves as a constitutional sheriff, who had said that they didn't plan on enforcing all of the laws, especially when it comes to gun legislation that we've passed, some gun control legislation - just some real extreme views. And voters picked the more moderate sheriff candidate there - certainly not revolutionizing what the traditional practice of public safety is among sheriffs, but I think voters definitely want to put more boundaries in place, and are worried about accountability, and really focusing on what makes people safer from all perspectives, and wanting to make sure people's rights are respected. And not necessarily feeling like violating people's rights is just a necessary price we have to pay to be safer as a community - that allowing that perhaps is part of what is making us more dangerous, what is contributing to some of the challenges in recruiting police officers. And addressing some of those systemic issues or at least promises of doing that from people are more convincing to voters in areas that have been comfortable voting for Republicans even - that they aren't just willing to just say, Do whatever you say you need to do regardless of whether it violates rights, or doesn't jive with the law, or whatever that is. So interesting results across the state certainly. Now with that, I want to talk about a couple of other things that we saw, including news. We saw news, we saw coverage before - I think particularly from PubliCola, from Notes from the Emerald City - about one of the most well-known officers in the Seattle Police Department suing the department. Detective Cookie Bouldin - suing the department saying that she has witnessed and experienced racism, gender discrimination over several years with the department. What do you see with this? [00:50:19] Melissa Santos: I mean, I don't think it's necessarily a surprise that over time, especially over decades, a woman of color, Black women in particular, may not have felt at home in the Seattle Police Department. This is something I believe she's raised before, now it's just there's a formal lawsuit. It's something that - it's not a huge surprise, but I think that it is a blow to the department to have someone so recognized as a leader and over time, to make these claims. It's kind of like when - not to change the subject to another thing, but when Ben Danielson, who worked at Seattle Children's, is a very respected Black pediatrician - is also suing Seattle Children's for discrimination and racism - maybe not discrimination, but discriminatory policies. And this has a huge impact when you have someone that you've held up as sort of an example of your best, in some ways, as a department or as an agency or as a hospital. And who is sort of someone you've said - This is someone who shows how we are including communities, who has been working on these issues. And then they say - Actually, there's been a lot of problems and there's been discrimination and racism that I've encountered in unacceptable ways. It's a huge blow to the police department, Seattle Children's. These are things that really are not good for the - not just the image of the police department, but because - they point to real problems. I'm not saying this is just an optics issue or something, but it signals that maybe what you've been saying publicly isn't what's happening internally, and it isn't what's happening privately, or how people are experiencing your actual policies and your actual operation. So that's not great. And I know for the police department - and I know that Chief Adrian Diaz has been really vocal about stamping out racism in the department. I mean, it's something he talks about a lot. But this indicates that there's been problems for a long time, at least in the minds of one of their really esteemed long-time officers in the Seattle Police Department. And I don't know that one chief talking about stamping out racism and trying to talk about culture change can - I don't know that the boat shifts that fast, right? So if you're pointing to deeper issues that have been - for decades, someone who's been there for decades, or was there for decades - gosh, I mean, it kind of, it raises questions about how much is still persisting of this and then how quickly it can change if it still is persisting. [00:53:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean, I think lots of people aren't surprised to hear that it is persisting, given a number of the things that we've seen coming out - whether it's the video of the SPOG Vice-President mocking the value of the life of a pedestrian that was killed, Jaahnavi Kandula, that was killed by a police officer speeding without lights and sirens on on the way to a call, whether it's the tombstone that they saw, whether it's just a number of the incidents that have resulted in complaints against several officers, consistently against a consistent group of officers, it seems, in several situations. And it's particularly notable just because Detective Cookie, as she's known by so many, has really been such a PR boon for the department, really is a face of the department. When people talk about community policing, when they talk about building relationships with community, when they talk about - Hey, there should be officers that really care, really get to know people, look out for people - a lot of them are directly thinking about Cookie Bouldin. They're directly thinking about things that they've seen her do in community. There's a park named after her. She's known for almost mentoring people, working, getting kids involved with chess - really someone who, I think, regardless of where you stand on the institution of policing where people would say, even with people that disagree, but if you're like Detective Cookie - She's okay, I've seen her help, I've seen her care. Certainly what I think a lot of people would want police to aspire to be, would want the role to aspire to be in a best case scenario. And for her to say - Yeah, well, this institution certainly, in Seattle, is one that is racist, is discriminatory, and has harmed people like me, people who it's held up as paragons and examples of what the job really is and how it can be done in the community - is troubling. We've seen this happen several times before in other departments - not with, I think, officers as publicly visible and known as Detective Cookie. But certainly a lot of discrimination suits - particularly from Black officers, other officers of color - saying that there have been systemic issues that they have been the victim of. Or even off-duty incidents where people have not recognized that they were officers and just saw a person of color and treated them in a different way than they were supposed to. So we'll see how this turns out, but certainly a stain, another stain on the department. I don't think anyone can say this is coming - this is just grievance, or sour grapes, or someone who just hates the institution of policing and is using anything to just tear down police, or who isn't supportive of policing overall. This is someone who has kind of built their life and they're living on that, is known for doing that and seemingly cared about that, yet went through all this. And maybe because they cared, endured through all of it - don't know the details there, but it is challenging. And I think one of the things that came out of the debates and the campaigns, the conversations that people had is really a reckoning with - maybe this is a big problem for recruiting. Maybe it's not the money that has been thrown at them that we've tried to use, that now even police officers are saying this is not a problem about money. People are talking about - it's not an attractive job. Maybe is it actually what's happening within departments the part that's not attractive and not external reaction to it. I hope that whoever winds up being elected on the council contends with this in a serious way. I think no matter what the view is on police, and I think there's a range of them within the candidates who are currently in the lead and even those who are not. But I do think this needs to be taken seriously. And I think even if you look at polling of Seattle residents - their views on public safety and policing are more nuanced than some of the like flat, simple - either you back the blue, you support cops, or you don't. Think people are, I think it's fair to say that at least most voters are generally supportive of having police respond when they call 911, but they want that to be an effective response. They want it to be a constitutional response that does keep everybody safe, and respect everybody, and build trust in the community. And we're just seeing too many things that are not that. And with that, I think that we have come to a close today. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, November 10th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks, and this past week's guest co-host, is the incredible Dr. Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos, who does a wonderful job reporting on all things political and beyond. You can find Melissa on Twitter @MelissaSantos1. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms, basically, as @finchfrii - that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.  

Over the last six weeks, Hacks & Wonks presented our series of interviews with most of the Seattle City Council candidates! (We did have one cancel, one decline, and one not respond to our invitation…) Now, join Crystal and Shannon behind-the-scenes of Hacks & Wonks for a bonus (not-so) short episode where they discuss how questions got chosen and written, the why behind those kludgy SPOG contract questions, thoughts and observations after all the interviews, and their approach to editing. And also, a bit of venting. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle.   Resources “Rob Saka, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maren Costa, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 1” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 1 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 2 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Joy Hollingsworth, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Alex Hudson, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 3” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 3 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Maritza Rivera, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Ron Davis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 4 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “ChrisTiana ObeySumner, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 5” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 5 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Pete Hanning, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 6” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle City Council District 6 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   “Andrew Lewis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 7” from Hacks & Wonks “Seattle City Council District 7 Lightning Round” from Hacks & Wonks   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, this is a little bonus short - I don't know, we'll wind up seeing how long this turns out to be. I am joined here with someone who you don't hear from on the mic often, but every time we do, it's wonderful. She is the person who does so much work for the podcast - this is a team effort. I'm here with Dr. Shannon Cheng. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:14] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal! [00:01:16] Crystal Fincher: So Dr. Shannon Cheng - who is incredible, who works with me, who is a subject matter expert on public safety, is the guru for knowledge about like the SPOG contract, SPMA contract, that kind of stuff. She really understands and has the ability to actually explain it and share it in really accessible ways. But I just want to back up and talk about what you do and how you became an expert. What do you do, Shannon? [00:01:44] Shannon Cheng: So I find myself involved in local policy and politics kind of by accident. I mean, you referenced that I'm a doctor - my doctorate is in Space Propulsion, I'm an aerospace engineer by training. And I guess if I try to think about the throughline of how I've operated in life is that I kind of don't want to end up doing things that aren't gonna let me go to sleep at night. So what happened with me with aerospace is - at one point - understanding that basically staying involved in that industry was contributing to weapons of destruction and war. And I just couldn't bring myself to do that. So through volunteering and activism, I guess that's how I met up with Crystal and got connected and have been doing a lot of things. I work on People Power Washington, which is focused on equitable public safety and policing across Washington state. We've worked on the Seattle, King County and State Legislature levels. We work on things ranging from budget advocacy to monitoring these difficult to understand police guild contracts and understanding how those get in the way of accountability, trying to work to pass charter amendments at the county level that would support better public safety and-- [00:02:59] Crystal Fincher: Shannon was instrumental in the passage of that 2020 County Charter Amendment to reform public safety. Instrumental. [00:03:07] Shannon Cheng: And yeah, then recently I was invited to join the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. And so that's been really a wonderful experience to just engage with families who have been directly impacted by police violence and brutality, and trying to work to have that not happen to anybody else ever again. So that's kind of me. [00:03:32] Crystal Fincher: That is. Except you are the ultimate fun fact person. Like you have so many fun facts. A prior student of yours is currently on the Space Station right now. [00:03:42] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - he was up there for a six month stint. He may have come back down by now, but - I think the launch was in February - and when they were showing the pictures, I was like, Wait, I taught that guy Dynamics. [00:03:58] Crystal Fincher: You have a picture of you like in zero gravity working on a thing. You are an orienteering champion, which is a whole thing. [00:04:07] Shannon Cheng: Yes. It is a sport that is not super popular in this country - it's widely popular in Europe, in Australia, New Zealand, those areas. But yes, you could say I am an orienteering champion of sorts-- [00:04:20] Crystal Fincher: You are literally an orienteering champion. [00:04:24] Shannon Cheng: --thanks to participation and attendance. [00:04:27] Crystal Fincher: And you being great. It's not like there were no competitors. Yeah, there are so many fun facts about Shannon - just awesome things that pop up here and there. But Shannon is talented at everything basically, and is just one of the best human beings I know. And an instrumental part of Hacks & Wonks. So that's why we're both here talking to you right now. So we wanted to have this conversation to talk about just what we were thinking when we were putting together questions for the Seattle City Council candidate interviews. And we meet and kind of do a whole thing - have an approach anytime we do series of candidate interviews - this is no exception. But especially with all of them and this conversation, there's been a lot of tangential conversation brought up - a lot on social media, a lot in the community. And some of these questions have become even more relevant in the past couple of weeks, particularly the ones revolving around policing in the city of Seattle and the new contract with the Seattle Police Officers Guild that is in the process of being negotiated. And so I guess starting out - when we start thinking about how we're going to do candidate interviews, what do we usually talk about? How do we usually approach that? [00:05:51] Shannon Cheng: I think we're - I know you are always wanting to kind of understand how would a candidate actually vote on issues that matter to people in this city? Because ultimately people can say things and have platitudes, but it really comes down to when there's a hard vote, which way are they gonna go? So I think, especially for the lightning round, a lot of our questions were centered around trying to ask these questions - and getting a Yes, No, or seeing if there was a waffle from these candidates - just to better understand how they think about these things and when push comes to shove, which way they would lean. [00:06:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think that is my approach. And it is an approach that is the result of years of working in politics, years of seeing how candidates process information throughout a campaign, how they conduct themselves just in their general lives, and how that translates to policy, and whether they govern in a way that's consistent with how they campaigned. And certainly one thing that is a throughline is - especially when it comes to tough votes - everybody will say, I believe the children are the future. Everybody will say - yes, they wanna address root causes of stuff, right? But as we see, like we've seen recently in this city, when it comes to issues of public safety or homelessness, people have all these value statements - but it comes down to a vote. It comes down to - Are you going to fund something or are you not? Are you going to really put into place the necessary elements to successfully implement what you're going to say or not? Are you going to just fund what you said - Oh, we need to do more than that. - but if you're only like voting to fund that, that's a different thing. So we tend to ask more specific questions than sometimes we hear elsewhere - we're not the only people who ask specific questions, but I definitely try to do that. And we try to figure out what votes are likely to be coming up, where are the big fault lines, especially for the upcoming year, going to be? What does it look like different interests are pushing for and where do they stand on that? Because it's gonna be an issue. There's going to be pressure put on them to vote certain ways. And if they can't stand up strongly for what they believe and be conclusive about what they're gonna say, that doesn't have a good track record of resulting in the kind of policy that people expect in that direction - if they're soft on that. So that's part of what we do. And I've interviewed people from different philosophical orientations, political orientations. And sometimes there are people who I think or suspect I'm gonna agree with, who are soft on things I don't expect. People who I don't expect to agree with, who - I hear their answers on some things - I'm like, Okay, that was thoughtful and informed. And I certainly have my opinions - you know that - we talk about my opinions on the show. But I really do hope - my goal isn't to super interrogate and like make all the points - it's really to get what they think on the record, out in the open. And really help people to make an informed decision based on what the candidates are saying, kind of without the - with the exception of the lightning round - without the time limit on - Okay, you got to get your answer out in 30 seconds or 1 minute. There's some nuance - sometimes it's more than that - or an issue is complex and we need to talk about it. [00:09:01] Shannon Cheng: And I would just also add that we have a lot of first time candidates this year, especially with open seats. And so it's also understandable that maybe a candidate isn't well-versed in every single issue area that is going to come up. And so I think having this robust set of questions also can help educate - both them and the voters - what is coming up. And maybe if they feel a little weak, or they get a question and they don't understand what it's even about, that's a signal of - Hey, this is kind of important. Maybe you need to look into that, and understand what's going on, and figure out where you stand on it. [00:09:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And I - we'll have candidates be like, Whoa, I hadn't thought about that before, I need to learn more about that. And I appreciate that - when someone - taking office, we can talk about all of these issues. But there will always be issues or events that happen, that pop up that you don't talk about while on the campaign. And so a candidate's always going to have to get up to speed on something new. Electeds have to get up to speed on new things all the time. And so how do they approach that not knowing - knowing that they don't know something - How do they approach that? Who are the people they turn to to help learn? What sources of information are they learning from? How do they process information? Those are all things that are useful to hear and to know. And so even if they encounter something that - okay, maybe they didn't think about, you have a perspective about how they process information. So I guess in how we approach writing questions, what is the process for that? Okay, Shannon right now is like, Okay, so Crystal is like - ties herself into knots and then tries to avoid writing the questions. And then it's - maybe we don't want to do interviews at all. And oh my gosh - they're too many, they're too few. It's a little bit of a tortured process sometimes, but you help bring some clarity and order to that whole process. [00:10:55] Shannon Cheng: I mean, you've done candidate forums - so we look at what you've done for candidate forums in the past. And then my issue area - that I work on in my spare time - is public safety and policing, and so I had the opportunity to put candidate questionnaire questions about that topic in as possible questions to ask. So - I don't know-- [both laughing] [00:11:19] Crystal Fincher: Well, with that. [00:11:20] Shannon Cheng: It's very last minute. [both laughing] [00:11:22] Crystal Fincher: It's so, yeah. [00:11:23] Shannon Cheng: But I don't know that people need to know that. [both laughing] We'll edit that part out. [00:11:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, it is - we do this in between our regular work. I'm a political consultant. Shannon works with me. We're busy doing that for most of the day on most days, and we squeeze this podcast in between them - with lots of coordination and research and preparation done by Shannon, which I sincerely appreciate. But it is a process and we're trying to figure out what makes sense to ask. We do still have time limits-ish - we stretch it sometimes. But I do - maybe we should start off talking about some of these questions about policing in the contract because some of these issues have come up lately. Shaun Scott, who is a great follow on Twitter - I don't know if he's elsewhere, but on Twitter, certainly - he was talking about, Hey, the city passed an ordinance. And he's absolutely right - City passed an ordinance giving the city council and OPA? - I think, one of the entities - the city council subpoena power over SPD and other entities, but like including SPD. And they did pass an ordinance that did that. Unfortunately, the SPOG contract of 2018 superseded that. Basically, it had clauses that contradicted and said, No, we're not gonna do that. And then another clause that says, And if City law says that we need to do that, that doesn't matter, this contract is going to replace or supersede City law in that. So subpoena power was essentially taken away. A number of accountability measures were taken away. So the questions that we asked were more specific than we usually ask. It wasn't like - oh, everybody deals with this and talks about it all the time. It was more - these are some areas in the SPOG contract that might be opaque or obscure that haven't been widely publicly discussed, but that are very important in dealing with issues like we're seeing now in the news. How did you put together those questions, and why are those specific ones important? [00:13:30] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, so I think it's important to first understand that officer discipline is considered a working condition under state labor law, and that's why these union contracts are kind of the last stop for determining how things happen. So as you said, the City has passed, I think, multiple ordinances to try to give subpoena power to our accountability bodies - the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General. But the thing is that because we're governing under state law, unless that officer discipline-related provision gets negotiated into a contract that is accepted by the police unions, then it's not gonna be in effect. And so it's confusing, right? We see this all the time that there's these announcements made - Hey, like huge step forward in accountability. We managed to pass a law that says we have subpoena power. - but then what's left out is the asterisk that is, Well, once it gets negotiated with the union. And so I think that's the thing that gets lost a lot. And so I see that a lot. And so when we came up with our questions - literally it's from observing what the process has been, and then going actually through the contract line-by-line and trying to understand - okay, where are these provisions that kind of weaken the glorious accountability system that everybody likes to point to and pretend that we have. So knowing that going through labor contracts is not everybody's favorite thing, that's why we try to boil it down into - Okay, here's a few especially egregious things that seem like baseline we should try to get in the next contract - which is why talking to electeds about it is important because they are the ones who are gonna hold the power in terms of getting what we want in the next contract. So that's the process that we came up with our questions. [00:15:23] Crystal Fincher: So, the question that we asked candidates in the lightning round was - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability, known as OPA, and the Office of the Inspector General, known as OIG, subpoena power? Why is subpoena power important and what difference could it make? [00:15:41] Shannon Cheng: Subpoena power is important if you're trying to do an investigation and the information you think is necessary to understand what's happening for your investigation isn't available, or if people involved aren't cooperating and giving you that information. So at that point, a subpoena allows you to basically demand that that information is shared with you. In the 2017 Accountability Ordinance that was passed, it was explicitly laid out that the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General would have subpoena power. However, in the 2018 SPOG contract - I'll just read directly from the contract - they list those two sections and then they have an addendum that says, "The City agrees that these sections of the Ordinance will not be implemented at this time with regard to bargaining unit employees and their family members, and third party subpoenas seeking personal records of such employees and their family members." So basically, the contract said - there's no subpoena power for these two entities. [00:16:40] Crystal Fincher: And yeah, I mean, we've heard and seen in several stories - the Seattle Police Department did not cooperate with the investigation. They can just say, currently - No, we're not gonna give that to you. No, we're not gonna share that. We decline to do that. And in issues - right now, there's an international conversation about both the killing of Jaahnavi Kandula and its aftermath with an officer mocking her killing. And the record of the police officer who was doing that, the records of officers overall. And we still don't know everything that happened with the East Precinct and it's leaving, we don't know what happened with CHOP - like those kinds of things - we still don't have answers because we can't demand them. We can't compel them. And this does. Not that that's gonna solve everything, but it is a tool of accountability. And at minimum, if you can't even get information about what happened, how are you gonna attach any kind of accountability to that? So it really is a very primary - we have to at least understand what happened, we have to be able to get that information. So that is what went behind that question. Another question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? What is this sworn versus civilian issue about, and why is it important? [00:17:57] Shannon Cheng: So the Office of Police Accountability has investigators - they're actually embedded in the Seattle Police Department - and a lot of their investigators are actually sworn officers. And so some people might think, Well, doesn't that seem kind of problematic? Because you would end up in this scenario where you have cops investigating other cops. Also, the cops that come into the OPA as these sworn investigators - my understanding is they kind of rotate in and out - so a cop going in could expect to then be back out at some point. And that would lead one to think, Well, maybe they wouldn't want to be as thorough in their investigations. So what the civilian aspect was - was that I think people would trust more to have a civilian who is not a sworn officer doing these investigations. And in that original 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance, there was provision made that there could be civilian investigators on this team within the OPA. However, again, that 2018 SPOG contract specifically said - and here, I'll again read from the contract - "The parties agree as follows: Unless otherwise agreed, at any time after the date of signing, the City may replace up to two (2) sworn investigator positions with up to two (2) civilian investigators." So they've basically limited the OPA to only have at any time two civilian investigators, and then that contract goes on to say, "Any case that reasonably could lead to termination will have a sworn investigator assigned to the case." So not only have they limited the number of civilian investigators, they also say those civilian investigators can't work on any cases that would lead to any kind of discipline that is on the harsher side of things. So that's why we asked that question. [00:19:44] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these, it is important to understand - different jurisdictions have different things that they can do, right? They all have their own levers that they can push and pull. Some things you can only do at the county level, some things you can only do at the city level - in a variety of ways. And so we do try and focus in our questions also on what can they do in their capacity as a city councilmember. And because they do have the power to approve or reject this contract, putting - understanding what their conditions for doing so would be, getting them on the record about that is important 'cause this impacts how the police operate within the city and with residents. The next question we asked - Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? Why was this a question? [00:20:34] Shannon Cheng: This is a question because - as we all know, the City has been trying for a very long time to stand up a alternative crisis response that may or may not involve the police. I think a big hurdle to that being stood up is this concern that I've heard - that if the City was to stand something up that didn't involve the police or the police didn't agree with, that they could file an Unfair Labor Practice with the state and basically say - this is some violation of their contract, that kind of work that had been under the purview of the police department was now being taken away from them and given to somebody else. So it's - I don't know that there's wording explicitly in the contract that says that, but it would be the union invoking the contract to say that the City was taking work away from them, basically, that they wanted to keep. [00:21:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's a big major issue. And right now we're kind of at an impasse - alternative responses and funding non-police public safety responses and interventions is one of the most popular things supported by Seattle residents right now. They vote for candidates who say they're gonna support that. Polling shows that north of 70% across the board, it's been over 80% in some polls. When asked explicitly - hey, if your tax dollars are gonna be spent, what do you most want it to be spent on? Highest thing is standing up alternatives to policing to address things like behavioral health crises. We all see that this is so desperately needed and that - it used to be five years ago, kind of pre-2016, pre-George Floyd, when police used to have no problem. They said all the time - we aren't social workers, we don't have the tools to handle this other stuff, we wanna do our core jobs and not handle all these other things that we don't really have the tools for. And it seems like because of fear of losing funding, losing headcount, whatever, that stopped and they started clinging to everything that they could have. So like we ask a question - Do you think parking should be housed within SPD? Lots of cities are having conversations, especially since police are saying that they're short-staffed to say - Okay, how can we more effectively deploy police officers and take things off of their plate that shouldn't be on there in the first place, that are not core to what a sworn officer - a sworn armed officer - is needed for. But the challenge is that that is coming up against, as you described, those feelings that - Well, that's something that we, you know, that was in our sphere of responsibility, funding is attached to it, headcount is attached to it. And if we lose that, maybe that's gonna be a slippery slope to losing other things. So like in the City of Seattle, the city council has actually funded alternative police responses. They have decided they wanna move forward with that, they've allocated money for that. And once that happens, it's basically up to the executive - currently Bruce Harrell, before with Jenny Durkan - to use that funding and implement the thing. Well, it's kind of stuck there. The money isn't being used. And for a while, especially with Monisha Harrell, when she was with the city, they talked about, Okay, well, we wanna do all that, we're just gonna do it with an internal department of public safety that will also house civilian responses. And I think part of standing that up as an internal department was to address the concern of the issue of headcount. And if the headcount decreases, even if it's just parking officials who do not need a gun to enforce parking, that - hey, let's not call that like a regular response, let's not use sworn headcount to do that, we can deploy that more effectively. But that is a problem that is stalled. And so the question really is - will they ensure that in the contract that is currently being negotiated, the contract that the council will be voting on, can they eliminate that as an issue? And obviously this has to be negotiated by both sides, but is there something they can come to that enables the City to move forward with what the residents are demanding and what leaders have committed to do? We've gotta find a way to have the contract not impede the progress that the city is repeatedly begging to make and promising to make. So that's what went into that question. Another question we asked - Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? Why is this an issue? [00:24:53] Shannon Cheng: So the current contract that we're under explicitly gives SPD officers the right to work off-duty. And this is in-uniform, so one factor in this is that this is basically allowing them to use public resources, meaning their uniform - and they retain their police powers while they're working for not us, not the public that's paying them, but for private clients who they work for. So, a lot of these things are things like security or traffic direction, and they get paid a lot of money for these jobs - sometimes I think even more than they make as an officer. And so one of our concerns is that, especially in a time when it's short-staffed, then allowing in-uniform off-duty work - it creates confusion with the public, for one thing, when you see a police officer not working in their official capacity as a police officer, but dressed as one and maintaining all the same powers that they do - it just doesn't have clear boundaries between their professional work and then their side job. And then with the short staffing, these added hours that they're doing on top of, in theory, their full workload at SPD, plus potential overtime that they're gonna have to do - this is just gonna lead even more to officer fatigue. And we can see how that could lead to more of the poor decision-making or judgment calls, and has detrimental consequences for all of us in the public. And often - with their history of biased policing - would affect certain populations more than others. So that was why we asked this question. [00:26:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and with these questions overall, some people are like - Well, why are these all like accountability questions? Are there any other things? Like, do you just hate cops? And to me, hating cops is not the issue, right? This is about public safety for everyone in the city and in the region. And every candidate who's run - I collect and keep political mail, advertising, blah, blah, blah - and what is really astounding is kind of the revisionist history of members of the council who are known for being moderate or conservative. Everybody's like - Well, you know, they elected me to be moderate and conservative. Or like people covering them - They elected someone. But when you look at what they said when they were running, when you look at their mail and what they communicated to voters - to a person - they talked about the importance of police accountability and reform. And, you know, some people wanna go further than others, but they all promised that. And so, if that wasn't just BS - anyone who's serious about that, and even if you're working towards community-centered, different things - anyone who is serious about what we're currently doing, and this contract is currently being negotiated, we really do have to contend with these things. And if we aren't, then we're not really serious about doing anything about accountability, let alone re-imagining what public safety can actually be. So no matter what someone's ideological position is on the council, they should be engaging with this. This is in their sphere of responsibility. They're gonna have to vote on this contract. And so we need to know - we should know, and we should be talking about - what these parameters are. It's very important and consequential, and can determine whether we wind up in similar situations to now - where we have an officer where basically the globe has said, That's disgusting and should be unacceptable. Why is this officer still there? And we have City electeds basically going - Oh, there's nothing we can really do about it. The contract, you know, like, can't really fire them. There's no precedent. - and like, those are all legal issues because of the contract. But they approved this contract - Bruce Harrell approved the contract that we currently have. He's not the only one - I think Debora Juarez was on the council at that point in time. Lorena González used to be, and said she regretted the vote. Like, this was consequential. We talked about this at the time - not many people were listening in the wider community. But like, this is not a surprise that we're seeing problems because of the overriding of accountability measures passed by the City and supported by people in the city. So that's why we asked those public safety questions. We asked a bunch of questions in the lightning round about how people vote. Why do you think these were good questions to include? [00:29:06] Shannon Cheng: I think they're good because this is an instance where they had to sit down with their pen in hand and make a choice - bubble choice A or bubble choice B. And so in this process of trying to figure out how these candidates think and where they stand on things, asking them about times where they actually did have to make a decision and knowing what decision they made, I think that's why we asked those. [00:29:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it's fair to ask. And it gives you insight into how they process information when it does come time to make a choice on one or the other, even if they think - maybe they don't think either choice is perfect, but they do need to make a choice and what they made is informative. In these, you know, also informing on different issues, where they stand there. We asked also issues about housing. We asked them if they rent or own - and that's an important question to ask, it's an important thing to know. And it's wild that we don't talk about that more because that is one of the biggest dividing lines in Seattle politics. It's one of the biggest dividing lines in voters. When you look at any results map of an election, you basically see the results of homeowners versus renters, higher income, higher net worth people versus lower income, lower net worth people. That is a fault line in Seattle politics. And looking at how votes happen, we see people voting aligned with their housing status a lot. It's something that matters, that is predictive pretty regularly. And so we wanted to ask that. We wanted to understand if they rented, if they own, and if they're a landlord. Some candidates were, some candidates were not. And then we face questions - the council actually passed an ordinance that was vetoed by Mayor Harrell, just about some more accountability for landlords and more sharing of information to try and better poise the City to address the housing affordability crisis. And so that's why we asked those. We asked the question about allowing police in schools because that has been talked about in some meetings. It looks like there are some influential interests that want to make that happen and encourage that. I don't think that's wide-ranging, but there were a couple of powerful and well-placed people who - that was coming from their camps - and so we thought it was important to get people on record about that. We asked about trans and non-binary students - making sure they could play on sports teams that fit with their gender identities and using public bathrooms and public facilities - and got a range of answers on this one. Why did you feel this was so important to ask? [00:31:37] Shannon Cheng: I think this is a community that's been under attack just nationwide, at all levels. And so it's important to know - I think Seattle touts itself as a progressive, inclusive, welcoming city - and we want to make sure the people who are leading us actually are. [00:31:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And respecting people's humanity without condition, without making them less than. And unfortunately, the sports issue is propaganda. It's propaganda. I understand why the propaganda campaign caught on - it's using very cynical tactics - but we do have to stand up and say, That's propaganda. We can't be like - Okay, yeah, trans people, we accept everybody - live, love, and light - all that kind of stuff. And then say, Yeah, but if your kid wants to play on a sports team - which is a very important formative part of growing up for many people, if they choose to do that, and also not just sports, just any kind of activities attached to school, which is something that so many people partake in - and say, Yeah, but not that. Like that is an issue of just fundamental humanity and inclusion - and so we should be explicit about where people stand, and we should talk about that, and we should force people to be accountable for where they stand on that. And make sure people know - before they vote - whether people plan on including every member of this community in our community. We asked about the economy, the JumpStart Tax - which there's been lots of talk from different interests about, from some Chamber interests saying, Maybe we need to divert some of that to help restart, relaunch downtown's economy. There are other people saying, Hey, this might be something that we need to increase to help with the upcoming budget deficit. And some people who just disagree with it overall, and think that we - that that's placing a burden on business, and that's gonna be bad for residents - and usually coming from the same people who say the sky is falling every time that there is a minimum wage increase, and then more people move here and are happier than they are in other places, so it seems like we would stop listening to people who continue to predict that and are wrong, but we don't do that. But wanted to get people on record for where they stand on that, because - in Seattle politics, interests are tied to taxes - that that's where a lot of corporate interests are really concerned about. And they will use other issues as wedge issues in messaging, but their primary concerns are about taxation and the maintenance of their capital. That's really what's driving a lot of this. And so the JumpStart is going to be at the heart of that interest and conversation. [00:34:09] Shannon Cheng: We hear businesses - obviously they don't wanna pay more taxes, but at the same time, we also hear businesses complaining that they're not getting the services that they expect the City to deliver to them. And so I think it's pretty telling that - you don't wanna pay for it, but you wanna get it. [00:34:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and we also asked about how candidates can better support small business. I do think there's a conflation of gigantic multi-trillion dollar mega-corp interests and - in the business community - and a small mom-pop shop, local business who is - hired a couple of people from the neighborhood and is trying to make it. Both businesses, both part of the business community - but usually very different interests and needs. And we have a lot of small businesses who are struggling. Small business - business is important to the economy across the board, right? But we need it not to be extractive. We need not to say, Oh, it's so important. So like Boeing, we're gonna give you more money than we've ever given anyone before with no accountability. We did this because Boeing is gonna create jobs and we need lots of jobs. But then we don't get a refund when Boeing lays people off and leaves town, right - that's a problem. And we have trillion dollar corporations in the city of Seattle who frankly use small business owners to say - Oh, please, we're suffering and we need help, and we shouldn't pay any taxes. When most residents, according to polling and election results, feel that businesses like - mega corporations are not paying their fair share. There is a conversation to be had - some kind of income inequality and differences in access and challenges that small businesses are facing compared to large businesses. It's kind of similar to what lower income people are facing in comparison to larger income people. Small businesses are having problems affording rent - that's a really, really, really big issue - they are suffering from predatory rent increases. Also, that's putting people out of business. But there's a lot to be discussed. And if you talk to business owners - we've done shows with different business interests - and their needs are broad and varied and they should be listened to, they are part of the community. But we do need to talk about them as part of the community and not as this super entity or something like that. So that's what those questions were looking to get at. And then just some perspective stuff - asking if they're happy with Seattle's waterfront, asking about return to work mandates - just helping to further get inside their minds, how they think, what their perspective is, where they're coming from, and who and what they may be sympathetic to as interests and as bills - when that comes up. Transportation and transit related questions - we have absolutely seen a difference in engagement and thoughtfulness, willingness to fund and include provisions that are helpful for pedestrians and people on transit, people riding bikes from leaders who actually use them. And we suffer when leaders are responsible for transit policy who don't use and ride transit - all sorts of distorted and weird policy and perspectives come out when we have people governing systems that they don't themselves engage with. And so we asked those questions to try and see - are you actually using the system? Because we hear different things from people who do take them versus things that don't. And just, that's a useful thing to know. Similarly, Pike Place car traffic is something that we talk about - just another one of those perspective things in there. We obviously asked about the upcoming revenue shortfall in the City of Seattle for $224 million. Everyone is going to have to contend with that. Every candidate on the campaign trail, every candidate that we interviewed has talked about wanting to implement new things that are going to require additional revenue, that are going to require resources. And we're moving into - Okay, we're going to have fewer resources and either we're gonna need to raise revenue or make cuts. And so it's just not a serious position to be in to say we should be doing all of these other things - these new things that require revenue - when there's going to be less of it. And everyone is kind of dodgy usually when it comes to cutting things, but they're going to need - odds are it's gonna be a combination of cuts and attempting to pursue new revenue. If someone is saying they aren't gonna pursue that, then we need to view their other plans that do require revenue differently. If someone is saying, I'm gonna go after revenue hard - that's great, but we should also know if there are any cuts that they think they may need to do. Revenue may take a while to come in. We will probably need to do some trimming in the meantime - just because the City's mandated to have a balanced budget. And so that's something real that they're gonna have to contend with. And those are really hard decisions. And you can see how hard they are by how unwilling or unable candidates are to answer how they're gonna prioritize cutting, where they think they should come from. If revenue doesn't pass or come through, what does that mean? How are you gonna approach that? And we do need to press on those tough decisions 'cause those are gonna be really consequential things. And I think sometimes candidates - we've talked about this on this show before - think that just like the hard part is running, and then you get elected, and then you can exhale. Running for office is the easy part - it only gets harder - and the spotlight on you gets hotter and brighter when you actually do have to make a decision that's consequential for the people in the city. And so we should poke and prod about that and try to get as specific as we can. We don't always do perfectly with that - I'm reflecting on the answers that we got. There were so many vague answers - and try and poke and prod - and some people just don't wanna answer specifically, or just are unable to answer specifically. But hopefully, as you said before, that is an indication that they should think about that seriously. And they're gonna need a game plan 'cause it's coming and they're going to have to deal with that. And it's going to be bad if they just start engaging with that after they take office and have to really make those decisions and move forward with it. [00:40:16] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean - I feel like in response to that question in particular, we heard a lot of answers to the effect of - Well, we need to look at the existing budget and look at where there are inefficiencies and you know, blah, blah, blah. And I am curious how many of those candidates - we have an entire City Budget staff, right? - who works on that kind of stuff and auditing. It's not like there aren't people looking at that. I just wonder how much have those candidates engaged with what is already out there? Have they found things that have been already identified? Would that even be in their process of trying to figure out how to reallocate resources, if that's the way they're going to go? [00:40:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And with these - I think it's important - obviously I have my own perspective, and I think it's important to ask questions and to frame them appropriately for the moment and for what's happening. And when I ask a question, I do - with these - try to give people a fair shot to respond, to give whatever their response is, right? I'm not going to cut them off in their response. I want voters to be able to hear what they think - even if I disagree with what they think, they get to hear what they think. But one observation I do have certainly, and formed definitely from working with candidates over the years, is that - we do hear, we heard a lot, we heard more than I was comfortable with, like, Oh, we do need to take a look at that. We need to start to understand where this stuff is. We need to ask tough questions. Like, you decided to run for office. This information has been out there, it's publicly available. There's a ton of information and resources just on the City website itself to walk you through the budget - each budget process - and hearings and a ton of Information. That's not usually where the issue is. The issue is when it's time to make a decision about what to cut, people are hesitant to do that. They're afraid of making people mad. And so we have these situations where candidates either don't feel like they need to come with a game plan, but we are in multiple crises. We need people who are saying - Okay, I have talked to community, I have done homework on what's happening, and this is my plan for what I think will fix it. We need people coming with solutions. We need people coming for proposals. That's the job. The job isn't to ponder and examine and to have endless meetings, right? That's part of the problem in Seattle and many places is that they want to task force something to death and workgroup it and blah, blah, blah. And then we end up in the same place that we were. I do hope that they get some more concrete solutions and process because that is going to enable them to hit the ground running. And it really does make a difference. If you don't understand the budget - the basics of the budget - just the, you know, like not every line item, that's a really hard thing to do. But have you even bothered to go on the City website and look at the budget documents they do have? Have you bothered to read and recall where some of the major issues of funding and major decisions were before? If you haven't, maybe you should. Maybe that would help inform you as to what's possible. You know, even if you think there's waste, fraud, and abuse - as they talk about with all that stuff - well, where specifically? 'Cause that general nebulous thing of we've been - it's not like this is the first rodeo with the City with a budget shortcut, it's not like all of that. And I'm not saying that there's nothing that can be reallocated - that should be looked at - but that information is out there and available. You can find that out. And I'm continually surprised - not necessarily surprised - I'm continuously dismayed by the number of candidates who say - Oh, I don't know that. You know, how can we know that? Or I'm not sure, I haven't looked into it yet. Well, look into it. You decided to run for office - get it together, figure out what you wanna do, and share that. But it's a risky proposition to have someone go - You know, I need to figure out what's going on, we need to look into that, I'm not sure what it's gonna be. And meanwhile, trust me to make this decision. Based on what? That's my personal opinion - that was a little venty, but I do feel strongly about that. And as a political consultant who works with candidates and gotten people up to speed on this kind of stuff - people can do better. People can do better. People need to be better. The city needs the people to be better, to deal with stuff like this. Anywho. We also asked about climate change and specifically 2030 climate goals. This is happening amidst a backdrop where it seems like every major body - 5, 10 years ago, people were like, Yay, we're totally gonna make these 2030 goals. We take climate change super seriously, and we've set forth these ambitious targets that we're gonna achieve. Everybody loved announcing those goals and that those goals reflected their commitment and blah, blah, blah - which is part of my problem sometimes, celebrating the press release instead of delivering the result. But when it came time to make the tough decisions in order to get there, they punted, punted, punted, punted until we've gotten a rash of announcements over the past couple of years that - Yeah, so those 2030 goals, we're not gonna hit them, but we're totally gonna hit our 2050 goals, right? And so if we can't hit this milestone, this benchmark, we're not gonna be on track for that. And the issue really is people just don't wanna make the decisions that are necessary to get there, right? Like, incrementalism isn't gonna get us there. And we are experiencing the impacts of climate change and it's not pretty, and it's not gonna get any better, right? Like this is the best it's going to be for a long, long time - and it's worrisome. So this is important. And specifically, it is 2023 - 2030 is right around the corner. There's a lot that can be done. And there's a lot of money being raised by the carbon credit auctions from the Climate Commitment Act. There's a lot of investment available throughout the state. Do they have plans to pursue and get some of the - what are the plans here? But we need to get on track and be serious about 2030, get back on track for 2030. 'Cause if we can't hit that, we can't hit anything. And we're in for a world of hurt. It's a serious thing. [00:46:22] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I mean, I think it's trying to understand - does this candidate have or feel a sense of urgency around this? Are we actually gonna put a honest effort into trying to meet these goals? And what are their ideas about how to do that? Because as you said, we needed to be doing this stuff yesterday, but the next best time to do it is starting now. And so what is the plan? [00:46:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there were some candidates - a couple that I'm thinking of - that had some good concrete ideas for this. There were others who very much did not. But also with this - candidates also learn from each other during the campaign trail. And one thing that I do think that we need to do is to encourage that more. The more candidates can learn - like actually engage with solutions - is a good thing. Sometimes - obviously if someone's biting a speech word-for-word, which happens sometimes in politics with candidates - that is irritating, especially for the people in campaigns sometimes. But if there's a good idea and someone else is - You know what, that makes sense. - that's a good thing. We should encourage that. And so I do hope - with a number of these responses, and definitely this one too - that people pay attention to what other candidates, even if they aren't in their same district, say because there are some good workable, achievable plans and ideas on the table that could definitely help. And if a candidate hasn't really engaged with that or thought about it before, there are other candidates who are great resources for them. [00:47:51] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, I think so. I think my experience, having gone through all these candidate interviews, is just every candidate is unique and is coming from a different place to run for office. And they do come with different expertise and experience. And so I think it is kind of a helpful resource to look at for other candidates, whoever ends up getting elected, people who are just concerned about our community as a whole. What are these candidates talking about as being the issue? Why are they stepping up to do something that - to me, sounds like an awful thing to have to do - put yourself out there, and get scrutinized, and knock on doors every free moment of your life. I don't know - I mean - but they wanna do it. [00:48:35] Crystal Fincher: Shannon is a notorious introvert, yes. [00:48:38] Shannon Cheng: They wanna do it. And there's a reason why. And maybe listening and trying to understand - what is that reason and what can we do about it? What are they saying would be helpful to them to address the thing that got them to do this incredibly hard thing? [00:48:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. Another question we asked was just - was about childcare, which is a really, really big deal. We talk about - housing is on everyone's mind, it's on everyone's agenda because it's such a major expense and it keeps rising wildly. It is unsustainable, right, in this situation. The number two expense for most families, which sometimes creeps into number one with multiple children, is childcare. We talk about groceries, we talk about gas and people definitely feel those, but people are feeling childcare in a way that is wild. It's more expensive than college and college is wildly unaffordable, right? This is so expensive and it directly impacts whether people can work - period - whether people can participate in this economy. It is cost prohibitive to get childcare for a lot of people. It's cheaper just not to work, right? And that impacts people's upward mobility, likelihood to be in poverty, to be able to get out of poverty if you are in, whether they're going to need government assistance, right? This impacts so many different things. And the way kids develop depends on the quality of care that they receive from early childhood on. And so this is directly impacting many families, indirectly impacting everyone in the community - from businesses, the regional economy, other parents, community members. And so we don't talk about it enough still. There are a lot of people who are and that's awesome and great, but I think it needs to be elevated even more. And for anyone who's talking about issues of affordability, who's talking about inflation, who's talking about just families having a hard time dealing with expenses - you cannot have that conversation in any credible way without talking about the cost and accessibility of childcare. So that's why we talked about that. And then, just general - Why are you running? What are the differences between you and your opponent? I will tell you - just from my perspective as a political - this is a question that I would ask candidates before deciding to work with them. And I'm looking, in that question, to hear specific and tangible things that they wanna do for their community. It is a big red flag when that answer doesn't include how they want to help people. If the answer is just about them - Well, you know, this was the time for me and lots of people came to me and like, blah, blah, blah. People know - different jurisdictions are different. They suit different leadership types, personality types - depending on what you wanna do. So is this someone who's running for every open position available under the sun? Or do they have something specific that they wanna do in the role that they're seeking? Do you have something tangible you wanna accomplish? People should have tangible things they want to accomplish, and not just running for vanity or because power is attractive, or it's something to put on the resume or whatever - run to accomplish something to help people. I am drawn to people who are rooted in that and have answers with that. I will say just in my experience overall - that determines how someone, absolutely determines how someone governs, how consistent they are to governing - and the way that they ran absolutely has an impact on that. And even beyond, even for candidates who lose, right? Usually candidates who are like - You know, I'm running because I see this as a problem impacting lots of people, and I think that I can be part of the solution in fixing it. - is that if, even if they lose, right, they still stay engaged in the community and working on that. You can see the motivation is not power for me - to them. It is actually doing something to help the community. And so, I look at a variety of different people who've run over the years, and it's interesting to see the people who are still active in community versus those who just disappear. And it was like a phase - them wanting to be involved. Now that's - obviously there's nuance to this conversation - people don't owe their lives to serving and all that kind of stuff. But if you are saying this is an important part of who you are, it seems like that would continue beyond a campaign and that you would see consistency there. So that for me, as a person who is either deciding who I'm gonna vote for, or who I'm gonna work with or in support of - that answer matters a lot to me. That motivation matters a lot to me. How do you see it? [00:53:17] Shannon Cheng: I agree with a lot of what you just said. What I really liked about the interviews we did was that opportunity you gave them to just talk without time limits that forums often impose. And it was refreshing to kind of hear people kind of being more their authentic self. And I think that's just - I don't know that I can describe it, right? But I think just you have to listen and hear how they talk about things. And that was - there were many candidates who came on who, just based on reading, doing all the research ahead of time for their interview and reading about them - and then when they came on, they were not what I expected. I mean, some were. But there were some surprises as well. And I mean, that was, it was really great to - ultimately, these candidates are all people. And I think on the campaign trail and it can get heated - sometimes it can get kind of boiled down to a caricature almost, or just what their campaign website makes them out to look like. And I don't know that that really is the most informative in terms of understanding who these people actually are. And for me, that just feels like - I wanna know that the people who are making these hard decisions for myself, and people I care about, and neighbors who I care about - even if I don't know them directly - I just want them to be good people. [00:54:45] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I want them to care. I want them to see the people and the humanity. I want them to not see statistics. I want them to understand that it's people. I want them to not celebrate the fact that they - it's fine and good - Hey, we passed something. But that then has to be implemented in a way that is felt by the people who it's intended to help. And if that doesn't happen, it all doesn't matter. And I feel like we don't pay enough attention to that part of it a lot. And so I personally, as a voter, am looking for people who understand that and who at least value writing legislation that has a reasonable shot at being implemented well and can deliver on the result. And who track that and who are willing to course correct there and not just paper over things that may not be great and act as if they are - 'cause the goal is to help people. I do wanna talk about - so we took a little bit of a different approach to editing. Candidate interviews - I know how things can get in campaigns and being a candidate is not easy, it's nerve-wracking and being in these interviews - and editing can make people sound better, sound worse. Sometimes people take a pause to consider, or - and that is a, Shoot, I don't know, or like, will say different things, right? And so the approach that we took to candidate interviews - particularly when we had both candidates in the race - we wanted to present them as straightforwardly as we could, to basically not edit their answers. Because there was a lot - we would lose things on a variety of sides, right? And my goal is to not interject our presentation of the candidate. It's to give you the candidate. And I think people can hear throughout these interviews that you can hear someone thinking, you can hear someone processing, you can hear someone being - dodging, or like really contending with someone - like that whole thing mattered. And it seemed like we didn't - editing that, that was just gonna be a no-win situation for - Are we making someone look better? Are we making someone look worse? Are we interjecting what we think into there? So we actually decided just to - sometimes I would flub up a question, right? And like that's edited out, but we let candidates just answer and let their answers be their answers. And you can hear them. And they are people, right? And this isn't easy. And people can be super nervous in an interview, right? Like this is - I get nervous sometimes before I do things - that's totally fair. So I - if someone - I'm not looking for someone to sound perfect or perfectly polished, right? There are some times you can sound too polished. But just to give people an accurate impression of who they are, and how they're engaging with the answer, and can make their own call on whatever that is. But basically it was like - we don't record live, but you got the answer as though it was. So that's the approach that we took there. 'Cause we did get a couple of questions on - Are these edited? Or like, How, like, are you going to do that? Or like, Did you, you know, take - No, that's, that's exactly how it happened. [00:57:50] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, we cut out things like coughing fits or the ever-present train siren behind Crystal. [00:57:57] Crystal Fincher: Yes, yes. [00:57:58] Shannon Cheng: Otherwise - tried to keep it real. I mean, you know, our goal with this project is to educate people about who they are going to make choices between and hopefully inform them in that decision that's coming up. November 7th! [00:58:13] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. You can register to vote online. Even if you have been convicted of a felony and have been incarcerated, the moment you are released, you are eligible to re-register and vote again. Just be involved in making this decision. Voting locally is really important. It's more consequential than all the federal stuff that's going on. Although we hear wall-to-wall coverage and every news program every night is talking about Congress and the president - and not that that's not important. But like, look at how different states are. Look at how different Washington and Alabama are. Look at how different Forks and Seattle and Cle Elum and Spokane and Ellensburg - that is how much control cities have over who they are and how they operate. It can be as different as all of these different cities. They can be night and day difference. And that is all the impact of these local officials that we're electing in the elections that we're having this November. So that's why I do this show. It's really, really important to talk about this stuff and not enough people do regularly. And I'm not saying that it's easy - we make it hard for people to understand and participate in these issues. So just trying to make that more accessible to more people and to help understand where it may be helpful to focus and consider and engage. But this matters, and it matters to try and elect people who will actually deliver on the policy that you think they should be delivering and implementing. So that's why we did this and appreciate you listening to our little explainer about our approach. [00:59:47] Shannon Cheng: Thank you everyone! [00:59:48] Crystal Fincher: Thank you! Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! Robert fills Crystal in on dismaying news about Seattle Public Schools - how the district provoked parent fury by removing teachers and splitting classes after they screwed up enrollment projections, as well as their proposal for an austerity plan that includes school closures and anti-union financial policies. They then switch gears to discuss the conservative National Association of Realtors pouring money into the Seattle City Council races, Sara Nelson's penchant for campaign stunts rather than governing, and right-wingers using high gas prices to take aim at carbon pricing. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “ChrisTiana ObeySumner, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 5” from Hacks & Wonks   “Pete Hanning, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 6” from Hacks & Wonks   “A ‘routine' reconfiguration of Seattle schools brings tears, concerns” by Claire Bryan from The Seattle Times   “‘Please don't break our hearts,' Seattle parents, teachers protest widespread classroom shuffles” by Sami West from KUOW   “Seattle parents raise concerns over classroom size miscalculations by school district” by Denise Whitaker from KOMO   “‘The board needs to make this right'; Parents concerned over SPS restructuring” by Dave Detling from Fox 13   “Seattle Public Schools Unveil Plans for Sweeping Cuts and Lasting Austerity” by Robert Cruickshank from The Urbanist   “National realtors group drops $659k in Seattle, Spokane elections” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “Burien Mayor Sees No Issue With Distribution of Homeless People's Private Info, Council Member Blames Her Colleague for Fentanyl Deaths” from PubliCola   “Will high gas prices derail WA's climate policy?” by Conrad Swanson from The Seattle Times   “Don't let the oil industry gaslight us about high prices at the pump” by Leah Missik for The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited, and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 5 candidate, ChrisTiana ObeySumner, and District 6 candidate, Pete Hanning. We did not talk with their opponents - Cathy Moore in D5 cancelled and Dan Strauss in D6 declined. Have a listen and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help you better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:46] Robert Cruickshank: Hey - thanks for having me back again, Crystal. [00:01:48] Crystal Fincher: Hey, absolutely - thanks for being back. Well, there's a lot of news this week - a lot about everything. We're going to start off by talking about Seattle Public Schools and them really provoking parent fury, once again, by removing teachers and splitting up classes after the district screwed up enrollment projections. What's going on here? [00:02:11] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, there was a board meeting last night that was packed with parents from across Seattle, and huge media turnout - all four TV stations were there, The Seattle Times was there, KUOW was there - covering this. And what happened is - over the summer, the school district administrators told principals at schools different ratios and rules and projections for enrollments they had to use in determining how many teachers they would have and how many students they could have to a teacher. And there are rules coming from the state about needing to have small class sizes at elementary schools - it's a good thing, we want that. And so the principals went forth with what the district told them, made the assignments, school began in early September - everything's going great. Then all of a sudden, at the beginning of October, just a week ago, the district realized - oops, they screwed up the calculation. And that if they don't fix it, they could lose a $3.6 million grant from the state. Now the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction has said that Seattle's actually fine - we don't see an issue yet - but the district claims that they needed to take proactive steps. And so the district did - rather than say, Okay, here's some money to bring on additional teachers so we don't have to remove teachers from schools, so we don't have to take kids away from their classroom a month into the year - the district instead said, No, we're not gonna spend any extra money, we're just gonna move everyone around at 40 different schools, remove some teachers from the classroom entirely, create a bunch of split classes where a bunch of third graders now are gonna go into a room with a bunch of second graders, for example. And parents are furious, and they should be. I can give you a personal story. I have a fourth grader at Adams Elementary in Ballard, and he was in kindergarten when the pandemic hit and schools closed. So he lost half of kindergarten, and then first grade was mostly online. By the time he and his classmates get to second grade, they had any number of problems in the classroom for the full year. Second grade was a disaster for my kid, who had a ton of behavioral issues, and a lot of other kids in the class. Get to third grade, and his teacher at Adams Elementary, Ms. Windus, is excellent and she puts in a ton of work with these kids to get them back on track - helping them get back not just academically, but socially, emotionally. Third grade was great - not just for my kid, but for all the others in the class. Fourth grade's been going great so far. Well, because of these district-mandated cuts, the school has to get rid of Ms. Windus who's like this excellent teacher. And last night at the board meeting, we heard similar stories from across the city, including some really gut-wrenching stories from Southeast Seattle - Orca K-8 and Dunlap Elementaries - teachers of color, parents of color coming up and saying, Look, for the first time in years, I feel like there are teachers who get my kid and you're gonna remove them? One teacher got up and said, Tell me which student I should kick out of my class - the one who is homeless, the one who doesn't get enough to eat, the one who has behavioral issues that I've been able to help correct, the one who didn't think they could learn how to read but now they can? People were furious and rightly so, because what is happening here is the district is trying to make kids pay the price for an adult screw-up, rather than the district figuring out how to make this right without disrupting classrooms in the middle of the year. They've just said - Eh, you all can deal with it, kids can suffer the consequences. And a lot of the kids are ones - like I said earlier, not just like mine - who suffered through the pandemic and all that disruption - but necessary disruption, to be honest - because of the public health needs. But now you wanna make sure that you've got stability for these kids, that once they're bonded to a teacher in a good classroom they stay there - that's the thing they need - is stability. And this district just doesn't care. There are deeper issues, which we should talk about in a moment, but what you saw last night was an outpouring of anger and frustration at a district administration that didn't care, and a school board that just kind of sat there and didn't really make any promises to fix it. [00:06:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, and this seems to be a continuing problem, particularly with that feedback of not feeling like the district is as invested in the success of kids as a primary objective, and not really being responsive to the feedback that parents have. Does this feel like this is a continuation of this issue? [00:06:41] Robert Cruickshank: It's exactly it. The district has made it very clear that they don't care about public feedback - they don't believe that they should be answerable to the public. They don't think that the needs of students is a priority - you see in the media coverage and in the superintendent's words last night - that financial responsibility is their top priority. Well, that sounds pretty neoliberal. This is - let's put money first ahead of the needs of kids. There were a number of teachers who were there last night - and parents said similar things - who were like, We're in the richest city in the richest country in the history of the world with some of the wealthiest billionaires here, some of the largest companies here. Surely we can figure out how to solve this by working with the Legislature to tax the rich rather than making kids pay the price. The point I made last night at the board meeting is - Even if we can't get legislative money right now because they're not in session, why don't we take money from something else, like Central Office? We should be taking money away from administrator salaries - and they can do with less - rather than decide the first way to take money is to take out of the classroom. [00:07:51] Crystal Fincher: Well, and I guess that's a question that I have, that I've heard asked - what are the actual remedies here? Is this a situation where there are no good options or are there, is there a way to move forward without creating this type of disruption? [00:08:05] Robert Cruickshank: So Seattle's kids are stuck between two bad actors. On the one hand, the school district, which is deeply mismanaged. And a number of candidates for the board, like Debbie Carlsen, and a number of parents last night have been calling for an independent forensic audit of the school - of the district - and its spending. I've heard similar things from legislators who say - Hey, we're giving the district money, we don't know where it goes. So an independent audit and management reforms are necessary. On the other hand, our kids are also being hurt by the State Legislature and a Democratic majority that has not made it a priority to fund our public schools. So what do you do in the meantime? Like I said, I think the answer has to be for the district to figure out - where can they pull money from right now? If you need to lay off administrators, highly-paid assistant superintendents or something in the middle of the year, do it. These folks make a fair amount of money - you save teachers here and there. Parents have also raised questions about the new calculations that are being used to determine which schools lose teachers. In fact, a number of schools - including the one my kid attends - have seen enrollment go up. So this isn't a case of declining enrollment causing problems. At some of these schools, they've been adding kids back, which is great - you want to see that - and now they're getting punished for it. So you've got to take a look at - do we need to make mid-year cuts in the Central Office to free up money? Do we need to have some independent auditors come in and figure out what's going wrong? District administrators and most board members don't seem to want to do any of that, even though kids are paying the price. [00:09:34] Crystal Fincher: And I guess that leads me into a question about the long-term finances and outlook of the district, which is troubling. They're looking at deficits, as are many districts in the state, and we've talked about that before. Seattle Public Schools is proposing an austerity plan. What does that mean, and what kind of impact will that have? [00:09:57] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so to be clear, districts across the state are facing financial problems because of the Legislature. In fact, there are at least three districts north of Everett that are under financial monitoring by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. So the question is - how do you respond to this? What Seattle Public Schools is proposing, and this came up last night after parents had vented their anger - the board went on to talk about a new financial policy that they're proposing, which is essentially permanent austerity. It would involve locking the district in at a budget level that is $200 million below where it was at last spring. They would have multi-year budget planning - an idea that was initially introduced to the State Legislature by Republicans - which would mean that you have a low baseline and you have very strict rules about how you can add money back. So if we succeed in getting the Legislature to pass a wealth tax, for example, and more money comes to the public schools, this financial policy would make it very hard for the district to go back and add because they could say - Oh, well, this isn't in our four-year fiscal plan, we don't know where we can put this money. There are also some interesting parts of the policy - and this came up for heated debate last night among board members - that are pretty obviously anti-union. I had an article at the Urbanist yesterday about this - and there are provisions that are clearly trying to undo the Seattle Education Association's gains in the contract last year during the strike. And in fact, one board member, Chandra Hampson - very neoliberal board member - openly said, Well, maybe we should look at reopening the collective bargaining agreement. - which a lot of people's eyes went wide, and jaws dropped, and made it clear we can't really do that. Teachers were there last night also to protest against this. There are other provisions in there which seem designed to hold down teacher salaries - it's all pretty neoliberal austerity-type stuff. And what's interesting to me is the contrast to what's going on at City Hall. I think a lot of our listeners probably saw an op-ed in The Seattle Times from about two weeks ago, by Rachel Smith of the Chamber of Commerce and Jon Scholes of the Downtown Seattle Association, saying that City Hall shouldn't raise taxes on corporations and the rich. Instead, you need to cut your spending and just focus on outcomes. And now you're seeing some of the conservative candidates, like Maritza Rivera and others, saying that same thing on the campaign trail now. Well, Seattle Public Schools is about to adopt that exact strategy - of slashing spending, saying - Oh, we're focusing on outcomes, even though the effects on kids are clearly devastating. What this is leading up to - and this is starting to get discussed among parents last night at the board meeting - the district has said for months now they want to close a bunch of schools in the district next year. And if you think moving a couple of kids around and teachers around in the middle of October is disruptive, wait until you close an entire school. The effect of school closures is devastating on kids. People may remember 10 years ago in Chicago when Rahm Emanuel closed 50 schools there - it was devastating for the community. Research made it extremely clear that kids whose schools were closed did more poorly academically than kids whose schools remained open. I mentioned that to the board and the superintendent last night - we'll see if they paid any attention to it. But it's clear that the school district is on a trajectory where they are embracing huge cuts - they want to spend less on our kids, regardless of the consequences. And it's gonna take parents rising up against that here in the district, and also us going to Olympia and making sure the Democratic majority there finally takes its paramount duty responsibility under the Constitution seriously and fully funds our schools. [00:13:38] Crystal Fincher: If the Legislature doesn't, is the district gonna have much of a choice but to close these schools? [00:13:45] Robert Cruickshank: They do. I think what is happening is the district initially said earlier this year that they needed to close schools to save money. But in articles that have come out since, district leaders have been saying - Well, actually, it's not really about money. There is a article in The Seattle Times in late August where they quoted the superintendent, Brent Jones, who said - We're not gonna see any savings from closing schools next year when there's a $100 million budget deficit, we might see savings two to five years out. The district closed schools in the late 2000s, only to learn a few years later that they had completely missed their enrollment projections - and by the early 2010s, they had to spend $50 to $60 million to reopen schools they had just closed a few years earlier. So it's not clear that closing schools is gonna help them. Finally, there's the issue of - if you've been moving kids around and making clear that their needs aren't as important as meeting a couple of financial projections in the middle of school year and then you close their schools, parents aren't gonna sit for that. A lot of them are just gonna walk away - they might move to a suburban district, they may put their kids in some private school. So closing schools sets in motion potentially a spiral of declining enrollment, which means less money coming to the school district. [00:15:05] Crystal Fincher: Now, it seems like that's a problem that they're destined to run into again, with as volatile as enrollment can be - but it does seem to be cyclical. There are lots of times - oh, enrollment is just down. Well, it doesn't ever seem to just stay down. It doesn't ever seem to just stay up. So it seems like the decision of opening and closing schools - and the tremendous expense that comes with opening and closing schools, in addition to the disruption that comes from it - is an extreme response to something that we know is likely to be, has always been a temporary condition. Has this been discussed at all from the board level? Have they responded to that? [00:15:50] Robert Cruickshank: Not really. And I think what you saw last night and with this current issue of the class sizes and allocations in the elementary schools, it's not clear that the district really has a handle on an ability to project enrollment at all. Ultimately, there's no need for the school district to do anything just yet. The legislative session begins in January. Typically, a school district does not approve its budget until late in the spring or even early in the summer. The Legislature was very close to passing a wealth tax last year - there were 43 out of 58 Democrats in the House who co-sponsored the wealth tax bill, certainly more would have voted for it. 20 of 29 state senators voted for the wealth tax. And significantly, there's been major change in the state Senate Democratic caucus - the previous chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, Christine Rolfes, a Democrat from Bainbridge Island, did not give the wealth tax a vote. She begrudgingly held a hearing on it in the 2023 session, but wouldn't bring it up for a vote - has blocked efforts to add more funding for our schools. Well, she left the Legislature over the summer to become a Kitsap County Commissioner. Her replacement as chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which handles all the budget bills for the Senate, is June Robinson from Everett - much more progressive. She was a leader in getting the capital gains tax done. The new vice-chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee is Seattle's own Joe Nguyen from West Seattle, who is a champion of various wealth taxes - and has said he wants to fight to fund our schools. So I think there are real opportunities for our schools and for families in Olympia in January - we need to fight for those. We also need to make sure that the district doesn't prematurely embrace an austerity plan that will hurt our kids even further. [00:17:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We'll definitely keep an eye on this. And thank you for being so steadfast and following this - and advocating for not only your kid, but all of the kids in the district. I wanna talk about investment in Seattle City Council races - these campaigns are running hot and heavy right now, less than a month until Election Day, ballots are going to be mailed next week. So we have a lot that's happening and a lot of outside spending is beginning to show itself, including a very large investment from the National Association of Realtors. What are they doing? [00:18:13] Robert Cruickshank: So the National Association of Realtors has dumped about a quarter of a million dollars into campaigns to try to elect Tanya Woo in District 2, Joy Hollingsworth in District 3, Maritza Rivera in District 4, Bob Kettle in District 7. And there's been some good discussion online about this - well, why would the National Association of Realtors support candidates who are less friendly to building new housing in Seattle? And some speculation is that - oh, they wanna have less supply of housing so the price of housing stays high. That might be part of it. But if folks have been paying attention to either the National Association of Realtors or their Washington state arm, the nut of this is they're a right-wing conservative organization. They hate taxes. The fight for the capital gains tax in State Legislature involved strong, determined, long-term opposition from the realtors - they were some of the biggest opponents of a capital gains tax to fund our schools. The National Association of Realtors is in fact mired in scandal right now. Redfin, Seattle-based Redfin, recently left the National Association of Realtors because there are a series of sexual harassment allegations, antitrust lawsuits against the National Association of Realtors. Similar spending has come in in some of these races in Seattle City Council as well, for the same candidates, from the Master Builders. And so again, people wondering why - people like Ron Davis or Alex Hudson are really strong supporters of building more housing. So is Andrew Lewis. But again, this is just conservative politics - they don't want higher taxes. These people who run these organizations are Sara Nelson types - law and order, crackdown on crime, darn the consequences, and by the way, don't raise taxes. That's what this is really about. In fact, they're willing to undermine their stated goals of building more housing, selling more homes in order to achieve their real objective, which is right-wing ideologies. [00:20:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is a troubling trend, unfortunately. We have seen realtors engage in elections in Washington across the state in several previous cycles - and some very controversially. And to your point, usually they have been seen in these candidate races recently, engaging in ways that are very inflammatory, that are targeting candidates that are not conservative - usually running against conservatives - where issues such as taxes are on the ballot, but then being willing to use a number of social wedge issues to intervene here. So this is quite a significant investment in these races that they're making - not only Seattle City Council races, there is also a Spokane race - they have engaged in Spokane in this similar way before in prior cycles. In fact, I'm recalling one from 2021 right now - I think with Councilmember Zack Zappone out there. So it is not shocking to see them engage in this way, but once again, we're seeing the influence of big money in these elections. And this is something that Seattle has had a very negative reaction to before in these races. And so do you think this is gonna see the kind of reaction that we saw like in 2017 - when Amazon was so influential in spending money in those races? [00:21:44] Robert Cruickshank: I don't know. I would like to think so, but I'm not sure. Amazon is the colossus of big corporations, especially here in Seattle. And everyone knows throughout the 2010s that Amazon grew dramatically, the city filled up with people working at Amazon - most of them are good progressive people who don't share the company's politics. But there's a sense that Amazon was distorting the way Seattle was growing and that Amazon was a bad corporate actor - in fact, the Biden administration just sued them over antitrust allegations a few weeks back. So everyone knows Amazon. Everyone knows Amazon is a villain - at least the corporate leadership. The National Association of Realtors and Master Builders are not nearly as well-known. They are right-wing interests, but the narrative isn't the same. It's interesting to me that Amazon is not playing overtly and publicly in these elections - I think they learned their lesson from 2019 when it blew up in their face. They're probably happy to see that burden, especially the financial burden, taken up by the Realtors and the Master Builders. But I think ultimately people are gonna wonder why all this money is coming in. Seattle is a city that supports clean elections - it's a city that pioneered the Democracy Voucher. It's a city that if we could, if the US Supreme Court would allow it, we'd probably ban all of these super PACs and corporate contributions - we can't because of federal rulings at the Supreme Court level. So I think while the Realtors and the Builders have a lower profile than Amazon, I think there is a chance the public will see this massive spending and think - Eh, I don't know if I like that. Seattle voters, especially those in the middle - that 20% of the electorate in the middle that can swing back and forth between a more conservative and a more progressive candidate - they don't like powerful, wealthy, private and corporate business interests telling them how to vote. [00:23:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it'll be interesting - in my opinion - to see how this shakes out because this is not a situation like Amazon or where the Chamber essentially overplayed their hand and saying, Well, we're just gonna buy these elections. And you're right - Seattle typically doesn't have a - doesn't respond well to that. So I think in this situation, to your point, it is different in that we don't see the concentration of that spending coming from one source, but I think we are seeing it kind of trickling in from these different sources. And it'll be interesting to see at the end of the day what that amount of spending winds up being and how influential that is. Money is influential in politics, unfortunately. And Seattle has taken steps to try and equalize the playing field, allow more access to people running to be credible candidates - especially with the Democracy Voucher program - but there still is not a cap on spending in any kind of way when it comes to independent expenditures. And these big corporate-focused organizations who are spending in these races - know and understand that and aren't afraid to use it. And are feeling the heat right now because they're seeing popular sentiment - we keep seeing these polls of people in Seattle that they keep trying to explain away, but this is where the people are at. So this is really their recourse and they're fighting against the majority of people being in support of things like a wealth tax, like a capital gains tax, like an income tax, really. And so they're freaking out behind the scenes, realistically, and this is the manifestation of that. This is how they feel they can fight back - in these independent expenditures from corporate entities in these elections. So it's a dynamic that they used to feel much more comfortable, I think, in knowing that - hey, especially citywide elections, these elections, we're gonna be able to get our person in. We know that we can spend enough to get them into the general and we can control the narrative. We know that a lot of times, the Times editorial board has a similar narrative to their interests - that that will carry the day. But between elections being districted now in Seattle, which that's a relatively recent development, and some more candidates having access to get on the ballot now, and that just the demographics and the impacts of income inequality and everything that we see flow from that being so present in our communities today - people are looking at that differently than they did, say, 10 years ago. So this is gonna be really interesting to see how this shakes out. [00:26:32] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think that the big spending matters - it helps drive a narrative and a conversation, but it has to resonate with people. And as you're explaining this, my mind immediately went back to Green Jacket Lady. If you remember from a couple of weeks ago, Fox News came to Seattle and tried to show that - oh, people are really worried about public safety - and they got a totally different response, including a woman in a green jacket who said, What are you talking about? Like, I don't feel unsafe in the city at all. You saw somebody using drugs from the safety of your car and you're scared? And that's a real response from real Seattleite voters. All this fear-mongering that The Seattle Times, and these corporate interests, and Sara Nelson and her crew are trying to stoke doesn't resonate. And if you look at the election outcomes from the primary, a lot of those candidates who were trying to run on those fears - they were trailing their more progressive opponents. We'll see what happens - ballots are in the mail next week - I don't wanna take anything for granted. At the same time, there's a substantial number of voters in Seattle who do not buy that narrative at all. They want smart solutions - doesn't mean they are totally happy with open public drug use, they're not concerned about break-ins - they are. But they also want smart solutions to those and they're not gonna be fear-mongered into actually not doing anything - they're not gonna be fear-mongered into supporting right-wing candidates as a result. [00:28:02] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think you're absolutely right about that. I think there's a misconception - it's just like, Well, some people just aren't concerned - but the majority of people are concerned. I think almost everybody is very concerned and unhappy with what they see out there - unhappy with what I see out there. Do I want people sleeping on the streets? Do I want people battling addiction and behavioral health issues that there's no one there to address? Absolutely not. But I think the misread is that - therefore we need to continue doing the same things that we've been talking about, for a decade really, and seeing things get worse while we do that. I think people have grown impatient with doing the same thing and getting the same failed result. And wanting meaningful investment in behavioral health treatment and addiction treatment, in housing, right - and really meaningfully solving these problems. And it seems like the issue here is that we have a number of candidates - candidates on one side - who seem like they want to continue largely with the status quo. And that status quo has been kind of a carceral focus - well, we can jail people, we can sweep them - but not doing the things that we know have been successful to really solve these problems in the longterm and not just move people from one area to another, have people go just in this revolving door in and out of jail - because jail can't address the problems that they're ultimately dealing with. I think people right now are saying - I'm fed up with this, but I actually want someone who will do something different that has a chance to fix this. [00:29:41] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. Polls continue to show several things consistently - Yes, the public is concerned about homelessness. Yes, the public is concerned about public safety. That doesn't mean they're concerned about it in the ways the right-wingers are, as you just explained. Those polls also show the public wants an alternative to armed policing - that is extremely popular across polls since 2020 - and they also want to tax the rich to fund it. That is incredibly strong, and that shows up in all the polls as well. And so these candidates who oppose those things are trying to stoke the fears and concerns, and the progressive candidates have to be smart about this - you don't dismiss public concerns, you explain why your answer is better. And that does resonate - that is resonating across the campaign trail, you see it at town halls, you see it when candidates are at the doors - their message gets a good response. [00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and this reminds me of an ad that I saw this morning that is really - for Seattle - a really inflammatory ad. And it was an ad from Bob Kettle, who is the candidate running against Andrew Lewis in Seattle's District 7, which covers the downtown area. And it's Bob Kettle and one of his big supporters, Sara Nelson - the most conservative member on the city council, I think most would say. And in this ad, Bob basically says - Hey, I'm running because of crime, and because this problem has gotten bad, and we need to crack down, basically. And Sara Nelson explicitly saying - Hey, Andrew Lewis didn't vote for my drug bill, and he is responsible for the deaths of people from fentanyl overdose, which is a wild accusation - for a couple of reasons. One, Andrew actually ultimately ended up voting for that bill. Two, just to say that not cracking down on a carceral solution is responsible for people's deaths - flies in the face of data, flies in the face of all available evidence that we know and that we have here, especially since incarceration has proven to be extremely ineffective. And risk after incarceration of overdose is the highest there - because people haven't been using for a while, their tolerance has gone down, but they're going back into the same environment they were with no additional tools of support - and are most likely to overdose in that situation. What do you think of an accusation like this? [00:32:12] Robert Cruickshank: I think it's absurd. And it shows the lengths to which - not just Bob Kettle, but Sara Nelson in particular, will go to try to defeat progressives. 'Cause that's what Sara Nelson's really about - you watch her on the council - she's not a data-driven elected official at all. Her positions are often inconsistent and certainly inconsistent with data. But what she really wants to do is defeat progressives - defeat progressive candidates and progressive ideas. And it's kind of shocking - you and I both worked in the McGinn administration 10 years ago, and Sara Nelson was a lead staffer for then-Council President Richard Conlin. And at the time, my interactions with Sara Nelson were great. She seemed - I don't know about progressive necessarily, but certainly left of center - really forward thinking, interested in sustainability, really smart, knowledgeable, thoughtful staffer. Somewhere in the 10 years since, she made a hard right turn. Now, a lot of people have done that, especially in the late 2010s in reaction to movements for Black lives and efforts to reform police. And as the city becomes more progressive, there's a certain type of Seattleite react really negatively to that. A small business owner like Sara Nelson, who owns Fremont Brewing, certainly seems to be one of those. And the City Councilmember Sara Nelson - a totally different animal from the Council staffer Sara Nelson we saw 10 years ago - is primarily driven by a desire to beat progressives. And here she sees an opportunity not to solve the problem of fentanyl addiction, not to solve a problem of public safety, but to beat an enemy. And in order to do that, she's willing to go to just absurd lengths. To accuse Andrew Lewis of being personally responsible for the death of drug addicts is a really awful thing to say about one of your own colleagues. But Sara Nelson thinks she can get away with it because again, she's clearly uninterested in having good relations with someone who's highly likely to get reelected. If Andrew Lewis wins, she's gonna have to work with him. She doesn't seem to care about any of that - she's not interested in building a strong relationship with a colleague. She's willing to just, you know, scorch the earth to try to get him defeated. Now there is a type of voter in Seattle who will respond to that, but it's not a majority of the electorate by any means - certainly in District 7, it's not the majority. [00:34:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it definitely doesn't appear to be the majority there. And this is not the first time that we have seen this come from Sara Nelson, or candidates that Sara Nelson supports. We saw a media stunt earlier in the cycle - it was about a month ago - where she was with the District 2 candidate there and in a really cynical response and really tried to turn it into a photo-op, talking about crime or public safety, something like that, saying - Where is Tammy Morales? Well, Tammy Morales was literally doing her job that the taxpayers pay her for - she was at a meeting of the city council where they were discussing the Transportation Plan - a meeting that Sara Nelson wasn't at, that she used as a stunt to call out her colleague actually doing the work that they're paid to do, that Sara Nelson wasn't doing. So it's just like - it seems like Sara Nelson is uninterested in the governing part of the job, which is the job, but very interested in these stunts and this inflammatory rhetoric and running against councilmembers, really regardless of ideology, but that disagree with her, right? Because I don't think many people are - you know, would say Tammy Morales and Andrew Lewis are the same on every issue. I think it's fair to say most people consider Tammy Morales to be more progressive than Andrew Lewis, not that Andrew Lewis is not progressive. But it's - in that situation, it's just like - what are you even talking about? And are you working with these colleagues? Are you engaging with data? Are you working towards a solution? Are you just trying to inflame people with rhetoric, and these stunts, and going on conservative talk radio and doing this? And now we see this really inflammatory ad land. It just seems like Sara Nelson is really uninterested in governing. [00:36:17] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. And, you know, again, I think of Green Jacket Lady and Fox News because those are stunts that the national Republicans are really good at. You see it in Congress, right - the fight over the speakership - it's all about stunts to win the news cycle and defeat their opponents. Sara Nelson is engaging in the exact same stuff. She doesn't govern, she's not interested in data, very lightly interested in policy - it's all about stunts. That's all she knows how to do, that's all she really cares about because that's how she thinks she wins her actual objective, which is to defeat anyone she thinks as being progressive. We'll see what happens - like I said, there is a group of voters in Seattle that responds well to that. I don't think it's a majority of voters, even in District 7, but a lot of this comes down to turnout. We have elections here in Seattle in odd years - a lot of cities across the country have been moving their local elections to even-numbered years to make sure that more voters are participating in the process of choosing who represents them in City Hall. Seattle hasn't gone down that path yet - I think we should. We all know that there is much higher turnout in even-year elections in Seattle than odd-year elections. So this is not going to be so much a question of - can Sara Nelson convince more progressive Seattleites to turn on Andrew Lewis, and are more progressive Seattleites gonna show up and vote? [00:37:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's challenging. The one thing that the people who love stunts - traditionally conservatives, Republicans - have done well for years is really, for their audience, connecting every single policy to a politician, to an issue at the ballot box. And really over the year, over the years in between these elections, really saying - This is the fault of this person. It was Kshama Sawant for a while while she was on the council, now they're trying to find a new person that they can blame this on. But that seems to be the MO there - it's the fault of this person - and they're constantly hearing that in their media ecosystems. It's not the same on the left - we don't talk about issues to that degree. Now there's more facts involved in a lot of these discussions than those - kind of in those right echo chambers - but still the connection isn't constantly being made. So when it comes time for people to turn out in these elections, you have a group that - based on, again, a lot of data that does not turn out to be true - that is missing tons of context, but they're eager to get voting. Which is why we see kind of in - because we do voting by mail - we can see those really eager voters, those getting their ballots in immediately, skew more conservative - they're ready to vote. Where people on the more progressive side need more information to vote - the communication does make a difference, which is part of the reason why you see spending on communication and them throwing so much money in there because they know that is influential and impactful in today's political world. So the job is really for progressives to communicate about the stakes of this election, to communicate and share with your friends and family. There's a lot of people online - I am a chronically online person also - but it's like, I've seen people over the years kind of focus on advocacy online and skip their friends, their cousins, their family, all the people that they're surrounded with in their lives, people you talk to at work. Those are the people who most need to hear from you - Hey, you voting? You voting for this person? 'Cause like these policies that we've talked about, this issue that I know makes you upset, that I know you're frustrated about is really at stake in this election, especially in local elections that don't get the kind of national attention that our federal elections do. So I am just impressing upon everybody listening to make sure you talk about how important these local city council races are to people in your lives - and whether it's school board, city council - all of these positions are critically important. And it takes you getting engaged with people in your life to get the kind of turnout to win these elections. [00:40:34] Robert Cruickshank: That's exactly right. I remember in 2019 - during that city council election that Amazon was trying to buy - being on the bus going downtown from my home in Greenwood, and just getting my phone out and going through my list of contacts - in text, Facebook Messenger, whatever it was - whatever the last communication I had with them, I went to that medium and sent them a message saying, Hey, have you voted yet? You got your ballot in? Here's a deadline, here's the nearest dropbox. And I was actually surprised the number of people who hadn't yet voted and were thankful for the reminder - and these are often people who are politically aware and engaged. So it makes a huge difference to talk to your networks, your friends, your family, your neighbors. Those are some of the people you can be the most influential with, and it is worth taking the time to do that when ballots arrive next week. [00:41:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I wanna talk about something incredibly important that is happening right now that seems to consistently fly under the radar, but is tremendously impactful for all of our lives. And this situation taking shape - in that right-wingers really are trying to use gas prices to take aim at carbon pricing, especially here in our state. What's happening with this? [00:41:51] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, so over the course of 2023, as gas prices rise - and they're rising across the country for many reasons, which we'll talk about in a moment - there's been a clear effort here in Washington State to blame that on the Climate Commitment Act, which the Legislature adopted in 2021, which creates a carbon pricing system. And has been raising more than a billion dollars a year to fund important projects to reduce carbon emissions. Their arguments are - and you see this in The Seattle Times all the time - that, Oh my gosh, gas prices in Washington are some of the nation's highest because we passed the Climate Commitment Act. This is not true. We all knew that going into this, passing the Climate Commitment Act could, as it did in California, add maybe five, seven cents a gallon to the price of gas - which would be dwarfed and has been by global trends. Gas prices are sky high right now in part because of demand for driving, in part because of oil company shenanigans with how they manage refineries to try to keep the price high. And in particular, the number one reason why gas prices are high is because of OPEC, geopolitics, and the Saudi government deliberately cutting production to try to squeeze Joe Biden to get what they want out of him or to help elect Trump. This has all been reported in the news, this is no secret. And yet these right-wingers - backed by the Western States Petroleum Association, the oil company lobbying arm - continue to try to put out a media narrative, and you saw it again in The Seattle Times over the weekend, trying to blame the Climate Commitment Act for high gas prices. This is not an idle threat. Tim Eyman has been defanged - he's gone bankrupt, he's pretty much out of the initiative business - but there are new people trying to take his place. Guy named Brian Heywood has raised a whole bunch of money to try and qualify six right-wing ballot initiatives for the state ballot in 2024 - one of which would repeal the capital gains tax, another which would repeal the Climate Commitment Act. And so that's what the backstory is here - there is a effort backed by the right-wing to try to go after Washington State's effort to tackle the climate crisis. I think voters understand if you explain to them that - No, this is not why our gas prices are high. We can get rid of the Climate Commitment Act tomorrow and you're still gonna pay $5.50 a gallon for gas. We need to do other things to address transportation costs, including spending billions of dollars a year to give people the opportunity to get around their community without having to burn fossil fuel - that's what people want - that's our goal as environmentalists is not to make people pay a lot of money. Our goal is to give people alternatives that are affordable - that's a story, a message we can win with, but we have to fight a lot of oil company money and The Seattle Times, which is not as interested in telling the story. I will say a colleague of mine at the Sierra Club, Leah Missik, who also works for Climate Solutions, had an excellent op-ed - I think we can link it in the show notes - in the Seattle Times of all places over the summer, really just debunking all these arguments against the Climate Commitment Act, pointing out that the real reasons why gas prices are high, and pointing out that the oil companies are behind all of this. [00:45:00] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it's no secret - I have had my issues with the Climate Commitment Act, but one thing that is clear is that the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act is absolutely critical in addressing our infrastructure, and making the kinds of changes - and having the chance to make those changes in a just and equitable way - in order to make this transition to a clean energy future, to reduce fossil fuel emissions. And this is not an option that we have, right? We have to get this done. And the opportunity for progress, right, is here. And we're talking about the elimination of that opportunity for something that everyone but climate deniers understand is absolutely critical and necessary. And we're really seeing that element getting engaged here in this fight against the Climate Commitment Act - this is a chance for progress right here, and we need to move forward with this and several other things, right? But just blaming that for gas prices is completely disingenuous - it flies counter to facts. And it's always rich to me that people who are engaging in this conversation for gas prices, which absolutely do impact people's budgets and eat into their discretionary income if they have any, but that pales in comparison to the cost of housing, to the cost of childcare, to even the increasing cost of groceries, right? These things that we don't hear these conservative elements get engaged with in any kind of way, but something that they feel that they can use as a wedge issue here is one that we're seeing. So it's just very cynical - it is really unfortunate that they're not engaging in good faith with this. And I think we see most of the time voters reject these kinds of efforts, but it really is going to take a continued effort to explain that - No, this isn't the fault of gas prices and repealing the Climate Commitment Act isn't gonna do anything with gas prices, which by all accounts are going to get more volatile as we go on with time. So we need to stand up alternatives to just needing to purchase gas constantly all the time - whether it's through EVs, investing in transit, investing in safe, walkable, bikeable communities - we shouldn't force people to burn gas to earn a living and to build a life. [00:47:33] Robert Cruickshank: I was talking with my wife about this and remembering in the 1970s, late 1970s, when Carter was president and there was another energy crisis. And Carter was trying to invest in getting us off of oil. Reagan becomes president, says - No, no, no, no, no. We're just gonna double down on oil and fossil fuels. For the 40 years since, anytime we have an opportunity to try to get off of dependence on fossil fuels, this country finds a way to not do it. And the only outcome has been gas prices get more and more expensive and we have no alternative but to pay it. Those of us who live in Seattle have some option for not having to pay for gas to drive - you can walk, you can bike more easily, you can take transit, more and more people have electric cars but those are expensive. But if you live outside Seattle, you have virtually no ability to get around, to get to school, to get to work, to get to shopping without paying for gas. It shouldn't have to be that way, and there are groups, environmentalists, who have been trying to fix this for decades. And we keep running into the same problems - oil companies like to make money off of this, they don't care about the consequences as long as the money keeps rolling in. We finally got a Climate Commitment Act. And as you say, it's not perfect. In fact, Sierra Club was neutral on it because of concerns about where the money would go. But we also believe that that can be fixed in a legislative process and certainly wouldn't support a repeal. And so this is where we can move forward and make sure this is done correctly. Or we just quit again, as we have every time for the last 45 years, and then we'll be complaining the gas prices are at $7 a gallon, $8 a gallon. We know that that's coming if we don't act now to give people the option to stop having to buy gas, stop having to spend so much money, and keep more of that money in their pocket and get around the communities sustainably. [00:49:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 13th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter and most other platforms - Robert also on other platforms - I'm @finchfrii with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar - I love using Overcast for mine. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Sparks fly as incumbent Tammy Morales faces off with activist Tanya Woo.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn! They discuss how the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) Vice President who mocked Jaahnavi Kandula's death is now on red light camera duty, how a KING 5 story effectively victim blamed Kandula for what she was wearing, and how Seattle will pay nearly $2M after a man died of heart attack after incorrectly being on a 911 blacklist. Crystal and Lex then talk about Senator Nguyen's bill to detect gas price gouging, the Week Without Driving, Burien making their camping ban worse, how Bruce Harrell's dual responder program fails to civilianize crisis response, and a new GOP candidate in the 3rd Congressional District race. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Lex Vaughn at @AlexaVaughn.   Resources “Maritza Rivera, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Ron Davis, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 4” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle police officer heard joking after woman's death has been taken off the streets” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times   “New video shows moments before woman is hit by Seattle police vehicle” from KING 5   “Seattle to pay nearly $2M after man dies of heart attack at address wrongly on 911 blacklist” by The Associated Press and KIRO 7 News Staff from KIRO 7   “Sen. Nguyen moving forward on bill to detect price gouging at the gas pump” by Brett Davis from The Center Square   “Could You Go a Week Without Driving?” by Tanisha Sepúlveda from PubliCola   “Burien Makes "Camping" Ban Worse, Auderer Now on Red-Light Camera Duty, Harrell Order Subtly Improves New Drug Law” from PubliCola   “Harrell's Dual-Responder Proposal Would Fail to Civilianize Crisis Response” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   “Lewallen emerges as GOP alternative to Kent in rematch with Gluesenkamp Perez” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 4 candidates, Maritza Rivera and Ron Davis. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks. We hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. Hey! [00:01:36] Lex Vaughn: Hey, nice to be back. [00:01:38] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. And I just have to say before we get into it - The Needling is so good. You do such great work there. And like the last two weeks are as good as it has ever been. There's no one in the country doing it better than The Needling right now. It's just absolutely great. If you guys are not tuned into The Needling - website, Patreon, social media - please get into it. [00:02:03] Lex Vaughn: Thank you so much, Crystal. [00:02:05] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we have a number of things to talk about this week. Wanna start off talking about an update to the story of pedestrian Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by an officer who ran over her while going over 70 miles per hour in response to a call - although he did not have his siren going at the time - and a story that came out in KING 5 also related to that. But just starting - update to that story is the SPOG Vice President, Daniel Auderer, who was caught on tape mocking Jaahnavi's death is now on red light camera duty - has been taken off the street. It is not uncommon for officers to be reassigned to administrative positions while investigations are ongoing - that's the case here. What do you think about where we stand here in terms of accountability? [00:03:00] Lex Vaughn: I think no one should feel like anything real has happened as far as accountability or punishment goes - he's been reassigned, but he could be, as soon as we take our eye off this, he could be put back in the same position he was before. Auderer is still a major part of the guild leadership, so it's like - this isn't just any cop. This is guild leadership that forms a lot of the culture of the entire department, so it's upsetting to not see - once again, how - it's just upsetting to see how hard it is to even get real punishment happening for some of these people after what they do. They should be fired. And I think the next thing I'm focused on is just what's gonna happen in this next police guild contract - it's up this year and it's in negotiations right now. I just, I hope it's slightly better than the contract before - and it would just be nice if it was easier to hold police like this accountable. [00:03:59] Crystal Fincher: I'm right there with you. And I hope it's significantly better than it is right now. And there's a model in place for it - the City of Seattle passed an ordinance in 2017 that included many accountability procedures that the SPOG contract that's currently in place, that was signed in 2018, supersedes. It has written in there that it supersedes City law - so if there's a conflict, the SPOG contract is what wins, basically, over what the City says. And as we've seen, there've been several examples of things that regular people look at and say - This is not okay, this is not what we want - where we see officers commenting across the country saying - This is inappropriate, incorrect. Yet it seems like not much can be done, and the most that's done is they're suspended without pay then reinstated, or assigned to desk duty, various administrative tasks. It's a challenge. [00:04:55] Lex Vaughn: And I'm so tired of the shrug that happens - Well, I don't know, police contract. What are you gonna do? Well, now we're in negotiations. You are actively in a position to do something about it long-term. I don't want any shrugging right now about this 'cause we are actually in a zone where we can change the contract, or change how the City interacts with that union as a whole. I'm just learning myself about what options there are in increasing accountability. Is there a way to decertify this union completely if - I mean, I think a lot of what they support and don't fight against in their own ranks is kind of criminal itself. You're enabling people to kill innocent people - for me, to me, that's criminal. And it's like, I wish that was kind of acknowledged more often - where's the line here where some of what they're doing is criminal. [00:05:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and you know, the other thing I look at here is this is a threat to public safety in Seattle, particularly for people who say and believe that - Hey, we need more officers on the streets now, we need to hire more officers, there is a shortage. One, if there's a shortage, why are they responding to overdose calls, crisis calls in the first place and redeploying it? [00:06:11] Lex Vaughn: You know, as outlets like DivestSPD have reported in detail, it's - this call, where this young woman was killed by a cop going three times the speed limit in a high pedestrian area at night without a siren - he was rushing to a reported overdose call where health personnel, paramedics were already headed there. And apparently there were like six police units headed there as well? This is just inefficient, like at a minimum, at a minimum - incredibly inefficient and dangerous. And it really kind of underlines - how could you think we need more cops when in a situation like this, they're over-responding and actually a danger to the community. The entire way this operation is working is faulty and not increasing public safety. [00:07:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely not increasing public safety. And hurting the effort that they've invested a lot of money into to recruit additional officers. Since they offered retention bonuses, you know, there was a lot of talk over the past couple of years that - Oh, they need more money, they need an incentive to stay. Well, the incentive is not money. Many of them are compensated fairly handsomely, but since that was approved and they've been receiving retention bonuses - the attrition has not improved - we're still hurting as badly as we ever have. And it's time - and I appreciate Tammy Morales in a forum last night, as well as others, and there've been several other people who've also talked about this - just plainly stating, Hey, these incidences happening are a problem, are a disincentive for people to apply to be a police officer, to want to be a police officer, particularly in Seattle. And especially when so many cities are talking about having shortages, why would they choose a city that has so many visible problems and problematic officers instead of another one there? So, I mean, this is - the culture is as much of a problem in terms of recruiting as anything else. But also, we do have to stop and say - What are we even doing overall? - to your point. I also want to talk about this KING 5 story that came out recapping it, but got a pretty severe pushback and lots of call-outs - because in that story, they detailed what Jaahnavi was wearing, while it - was it dark colored this or that, you know, potentially talking about a drug test. And as you said - to be clear - she was in a crosswalk. She was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing. The person doing what they weren't supposed to be doing was a person responding to a call that was questionable that they should be going to anyway. [00:08:55] Lex Vaughn: I cannot stand anyone acting like - Oh, she just didn't look both ways. This was a high pedestrian area - at night, no sirens. How many of us would expect, as soon as we're entering a crosswalk, for a cop, a giant car to barrel at us at over the speed limit of what's, on our freeways? Okay - that's fast. She didn't, she barely comprehended what was going to happen to her before it happened to her. [00:09:26] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and when you look at there, it's not - one, it's a crosswalk, and drivers should be aware of crosswalks and crossings marked or unmarked. This is a marked crosswalk - there's a crosswalk sign, there's barriers in the road - this is not an area - Oh, who would know that there would be a pedestrian there? Like, if there was a place for a pedestrian to be, it is there. And to essentially victim blame in that way and not talk about the responsibility of the person in the vehicle that has the power to instantaneously obliterate someone - what their culpability and responsibility was there - is just really disgusting. [00:10:04] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I have to say, I'm really disappointed in KING 5 for that report, 'cause I mean, in Seattle, I think we tend to think of KOMO as the station that would run something like that, not KING 5. And it's hard to understand what the motivation of that report was. I mean, I guess they were maybe giddy that they had new video that hadn't been seen before, and I don't know, maybe there was only so much they had to say about it - she's wearing black clothes - but it just came off as very victim-blamey. You know, this is not a report that you wanna turn into a pedestrian safety cautionary tale - where that's not really the moral of the story here - 'cause I think any of us, most people, that would have happened to them, no matter what they were wearing, I doubt that cop would have all of a sudden had time to brake if she was wearing yellow. He was going way too fast. [00:10:57] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Absolutely going too fast to respond in any kind of way at that speed, to be able to take any kind of evasive action - and we see that in how the accident played out. I think this is reflective of the super car-centric culture and how problematic that is - instead of realizing that everyone has a right to use the roads and therefore everyone, whether you're walking, biking, riding. But the responsibility that people have in understanding that - yes, if you have the potential to do greater harm, then you must take greater responsibility. The consequence for a pedestrian walking out into the street to a car is negligible - there's going to be no damage there, right? Like, you know, looking at the worst-case scenario is entirely different than someone losing their life. And so I suspect in this situation - a problem that we've seen in lots of news media in that they saw the video, they looked at the police report and what the information that the police gave out, which unfortunately too often only focuses on, especially when situations when police are involved, only focuses on the pedestrian that is involved or the non-police entity that's involved. Just really striking, we - was the officer driving - were they tested for drugs or alcohol? Were they, I mean, you know, a sign of impairment there, so how in the world it makes sense? [00:12:22] Lex Vaughn: They were not. She was, he wasn't - despite the fact that this guy who ran her over, apparently had had his driving license suspended in Arizona the year before he came here and got hired with a bonus. So, you know, if you think these bonuses are getting us anyone quality, all you have to do is look at this case - not the case - we're not getting anyone special here. [00:12:48] Crystal Fincher: Well, you know, I don't know who it's bringing, but there absolutely needs to be a different strategy implemented here. And everyone needs to do better in reporting, and considering how they talk about this, and what our stance as a community is about this. I also wanna talk about another story this week that didn't seem to percolate, but that was surprising to me. And it was news that Seattle had to pay nearly $2 million to the family of a man after he died of a heart attack after getting delayed response because his address was wrongly on a 911 blacklist. One - okay, there's a 911 blacklist - there's news. [00:13:29] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I did not even know that. Oh, God. [00:13:32] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so the situation is this person had a heart attack, fell out - had lived in the unit for a year. The people who lived in it before him wound up on a list - and responders and police say they keep a list of people who have been hostile to or problematic with police, which, you know, I don't know what hard and fast rules about that, how subjective that is, but you can see how that could come to be. But they wound up on this list because of a prior tenant - that wasn't told to them on the call, there was no indication, you had - no one has any idea - [00:14:06] Lex Vaughn: I had no idea that was a thing. [00:14:09] Crystal Fincher: - that - yeah, that the list exists or that they may or may not be on it. So this guy's lived here for a year. It's not even like he just moved in there. [00:14:16] Lex Vaughn: And I'm like - oh my God. So it's like based on address, not even like phone numbers? 'Cause like I would imagine almost everyone has like a cell phone now. Like almost no one has a landline. [00:14:27] Crystal Fincher: Some people have a landline. [00:14:28] Lex Vaughn: I mean, okay. [00:14:29] Crystal Fincher: Some people don't have cell phones. [00:14:30] Lex Vaughn: It's like a small fraction of people. [00:14:32] Crystal Fincher: Most people do, some people don't - but either way - so they call and they're like - Okay, help is on the way. But the help is - they see there's a flag, so they have to wait for basically police to co-respond with them, which delays the call. You know, another 911 call comes in after a paramedic is apparently on the scene, but not going in because they're waiting for police. And they're saying help is on the way, but no indication that there's a delay. The man passes away because of - looking at the settlement, feeling like had he received more timely medical care, he certainly would have had a better opportunity to survive. But that this was the reason why he died - and that this list exists, that finding out through this, that evidently the list was neglected - they don't take people off the list or hadn't before this - was very problematic. In response to this, they're now saying they'll age people off of the list after 365 days. But you can imagine- [00:15:28] Lex Vaughn: Why did it have to take this to do that obvious a thing? [00:15:31] Crystal Fincher: Why did it have to take this? And how does no one engage with the fact that, especially with half of Seattle residents renting, right? [00:15:39] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I'm a renter. And I read this and I was like - Okay. I mean, I've lived in this place that I'm in for three years, so well - I mean, I don't know. It's like, I want to check - I don't know who lived here before. [00:15:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, how do you get on? Is there an appeals process to come off? The lack of transparency surrounding this seems like it could create another situation like this in the future. So this was a story reported by KIRO 7 - would be interested to find out exactly what criteria are to get on the list. Are people ever removed from the list now other than aging off? And even with things aging off over a year, people move all the time - renters move all the time - this is absolutely disproportionately impacting people who rent. And a year is a long time to wait for something to edge off. If you have an emergency and you haven't lived in your place for a year, who knows if when you call 911, there's some reason that you don't know why people aren't responding. So I found that just really interesting. [00:16:43] Lex Vaughn: And just another important part of that report is that apparently a dispatcher was punished and also sued the City because he tried to fix that system. And he was kind of like wrongfully punished on the job for trying to bring up and reform that 911 blacklist. And it just seems like - wow, you know, a person like me - I didn't even know it existed, but I think we all got to take a hard look at that 'cause that's a tragedy that didn't have to happen. [00:17:14] Crystal Fincher: Absolute tragedy. And very interested to learn more about how that list operates and if it is in line with best practices and it just seems- [00:17:24] Lex Vaughn: It seems very outdated. [00:17:26] Crystal Fincher: It really does. Wanna talk about another story that is part of a larger story. And it's Senator Joe Nguyen, our state Senator, is moving forward on a bill to detect price gouging at the gas pump. Gas prices have been in the news a lot lately - they find their way into the news every year for a variety of reasons that - the price of gas is high. It's a cost that a lot of people incur. And as the prices rise, people feel that in their budgets, certainly - don't wanna minimize that at all for people who are on a tight budget. But for people who care about that, I hope they also have urgency in dealing with housing costs, childcare costs, some of the biggest costs that people have. But gas is a factor in there, and so we have a situation where gas prices are volatile - they have been, they always are. In this situation, we have Democrats and Republicans calling for a couple of different solutions. Republicans call for a gas tax holiday, they blame the Climate Commitment Act - which was passed here in this state, which assigns basically a price to carbon - and saying, This is the reason why gas prices are high. Other people have pointed out for quite some time that we still have these oil companies making record profits and that accounts for more of the gas price there. And these increases in price don't seem to correlate with the increase and decreases in cost. And we hear - Oh, you know, refinery's offline for maintenance. Well, that seems to coincide with major holiday weekends and times when they know people will be driving to make the price skyrocket. California passed a bill similar to this, which Joe Nguyen said he looked at and is modeling this off of. And they found that there was some, you know, shady stuff going on. And what this does is basically establish a commission, or a tribunal, or some organization that can review pricing information and kind of proprietary data from these companies - saying that this isn't public data, so it's not like there are gonna be competitive disadvantages for sharing and it's not gonna be given to the public. But this group can review it and say - Okay, is this in line with costs, or are you just raising the price of gas to price gouge consumers - which appears that it's happened before. So this is an interesting bill that Senator Nguyen is moving forward with to detect price gouging. And I'm gonna be really curious to see how this plays out. What do you think? [00:19:47] Lex Vaughn: I mean, I'd be interested to see how they plan on changing that behavior. 'Cause I guess I applaud the effort to detect price gouging and do something about it, but I'm almost in like a state of - I've just accepted oil companies do that all the time. I mean, I think especially in that year after - since the war in Ukraine, it seemed like there was a period where they were artificially jacking up the prices when they didn't really need to - even after President Biden had taken action to reduce that problem, the prices were still high. So I'm just so used to the price gouging that I assume is always happening, I'm like - Oh, okay, you gonna do something about it? Good luck with that. I don't have high hopes, but- [00:20:34] Crystal Fincher: Well, I think there are bigger structural issues involved. I mean, we are trying to phase out fossil fuels in a long-term perspective, and that is going to make the cost of gas increase in the long-term. Now, as with many things - and part of that is the price is inherently volatile, it's gonna become more volatile, especially as - even if we wanted to burn all the oil in the world, there's a limited supply of oil. So this was coming at some time. How do we make this transition in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible? And that's what the proceeds of the Climate Commitment Act are supposed to do - these proceeds that are exceeding expectations from these carbon credits - that's what the push towards more renewable forms of energy, electric cars - but even better, getting the cars off the road and using transit - and making, building our infrastructure and building our communities in a way that make that a viable and attractive option for people. 'Cause right now we still have a long way to go for that. And in this Week Without Driving, many of us are experiencing that firsthand- [00:21:39] Lex Vaughn: How was that? [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: It's still ongoing. I shared online that I have a trip today to make where it's a two hour one-way trip, even though it's only 17 miles - but it underscores how important it is to improve transit service everywhere - and it benefits everyone. We have to get out, we have to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We have to get on this and accelerate our efforts to meet our 2030 goals - to have a shot at meeting our goals that are further down the line. We have a long way to go, but improving the accessibility and the experience on transit will improve traffic, will improve air quality, will improve finances. It costs a lot less if that's a reasonable option to do. [00:22:24] Lex Vaughn: I'm always shocked when people aren't completely on board with building great public transit as fast as possible everywhere. 'Cause even if you're a driver and you're never taking public transit, how is it not in your interest as well for as many people as possible to be in public transit? You get less traffic. It should be a win-win-win for everybody to get more of these things online. [00:22:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think there's a lot of misinformation about there. And I think the way that we have allowed communities to build and grow - that we've allowed sprawl and basically enabled- [00:22:59] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, yeah. [00:23:00] Crystal Fincher: -the inaccessibility of transit in communities makes people - the default lifestyle for many people is a car-based lifestyle. And we've allowed transit to atrophy in many places, if it even was readily available in the first place. So people - when people can't see it and can't see it working, they have a hard time conceptualizing it. [00:23:22] Lex Vaughn: Oh yeah. And I mean, whenever you do that Google Maps route - I mean, I do that sometimes where I'm like - Oh, what's the public transit route? If it's very long, I'll opt for using my car for part of that trip somehow. And that usually is the defining thing, right - is just looking up on a Google Map - is this a half hour trip or a two hour trip? [00:23:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:23:44] Lex Vaughn: I mean, that's a big difference. [00:23:45] Crystal Fincher: It's a humongous difference. And for several - I fortunately am privileged enough to not have to drive often. But for those I do, that's an absolute consideration. And I would like to take transit. And there are some advantages even on a longer trip - you can do other things, you can multitask, you can just decompress - you don't have to be present and aware, paying attention while you're driving, you don't have the stress of traffic sometimes, which is nice. So I mean, even on a longer trip, there are some advantages to transit, but also it can be less convenient depending on there. And if you have to walk a long way, especially in poor weather, when it's cold. Or if there aren't adequate facilities at a transit stop - I saw someone yesterday comment, Hey man, I looked up something and it was a two and a half hour trip, and my bladder can't securely make that trip and we don't make public restrooms readily available to people. There are a lot of structural barriers in place for people to be able to use transit, and we have to do a better job at removing those barriers if we're gonna make progress. And so the Week Without Driving is really bringing that home to a lot of people in ways that we can talk about, but when you do it and you feel it, it just provides additional insight and urgency into that. I also wanna talk about the City of Burien - yet again - who passed their camping ban and then decided to make their camping ban worse. So what Burien did was now expand the number of hours per day in which being unsheltered will soon be illegal. PubliCola has been doing an excellent job covering what's been happening in the City of Burien - we will link this article and update in our show notes also. But basically the Burien city attorney said that the city decided to make the adjustment after learning that shelters begin making their decisions about who to admit around 4.30 in the afternoon. And by 10, most are closed. And according to him, it would be too late to take people there - that's questionable reasoning. And by starting the ban earlier in the evening, the city thinks that it can plausibly say shelter was available - which is important in order to pass the constitutionality test - and that people refuse to accept it. Those are not hard and fast rules, and especially with some of the new shelter coming online, it is more flexible. The shelters making such decisions and closing early are part of the reason why it's hard for people to do that anyway. A meaningful percentage of people who don't have homes still have jobs. Lots of people who don't have homes or who are housing insecure have jobs. And if their shift goes beyond 7 or 8 or 9 or whatever the closing time is- [00:26:32] Lex Vaughn: Very unreasonable. [00:26:33] Crystal Fincher: -you have to choose between keeping the job that has a shot at either getting you back into housing or keeping you from falling into a further precarious position on the street. It just doesn't make sense. So they expanded the hours that they were doing that. During the meeting - there's a lot of misinformation that comes from the council majority on this council - they were saying that they, Hey, it increases the amount of time that they're able to camp, which is just false. Like it was weird. It only allows camping between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. - or the ability to be in public while you're unhoused, basically - even though that there aren't good options for where these people to go. And as we've been reminded several times, options are available and on offer to the City of Burien to have people have a place to go - land has been identified for them. And this is a seven-member council, it's a split council - so four members in the majority, three members in the minority. That four-member council majority has not decided to take the county up on the offer of a million dollars to help with long-term placement, hasn't taken - two entities now who have offered Pallet shelters here. It's just really unfortunate. [00:27:49] Lex Vaughn: Has that city been sued yet? Or like - 'cause it does seem illegal. I mean, they're not even, they're rejecting housing for these people and then doing this camping ban at the same time. I would think that's illegal. [00:28:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the question. And it does strike a lot of people as illegal, which is one of the reasons why the King County Executive's Office sent a letter to Burien saying that - Hey, because your police department contracts with the King County Sheriff's for your deputies, we're telling you our deputies cannot participate in these sweeps because it's unconstitutional. [00:28:23] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, that's great. [00:28:24] Crystal Fincher: And they say - Ah no, it's not. They try to do an end around and find a loophole by leasing to a seemingly faux dog park organization that - then they could trespass people off of land. It's just a whole mess. [00:28:40] Lex Vaughn: The extent they're going to boot homeless people out of their city is crazy - without helping them. [00:28:48] Crystal Fincher: Without helping them, yeah. [00:28:49] Lex Vaughn: The option is right there, the money is right there - and they're not using it. I imagine a lot of these things just aren't true that they're saying? But is that true - that thing they said about all these homeless shelters accept people at 4.30 and not afterward? Is that a thing? [00:29:06] Crystal Fincher: And the way he phrased it even is vague in and of itself - they begin making their decisions at 4.30. [00:29:12] Lex Vaughn: Begin making their decisions at-- [00:29:14] Crystal Fincher: Yes. [00:29:14] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, and it's like - yeah, just think about, I mean, the average person is not done with work at 4.30. They're not even home from work at 4.30, if they're not a remote worker. And yeah, and there's a lot of different shifts out there that people might be taking. And it assumes that people who don't have shelter don't have jobs, which is just the worst piece of misinformation. [00:29:38] Crystal Fincher: Or don't have any other interests, or places to go - it's just challenging. And speaking of the King County Sheriff's, this is a big concern - who are they gonna have to actually enforce this? - which is a question that was asked. And Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling said on the dais that - Hey, the King County Sheriff's Office signed off on the change. However, PubliCola followed up with the King County Sheriff's Office, and a spokesman for King County Executive Dow Constantine told PubliCola that the county has not made a decision about whether and how to enforce the law. So, that is absolutely not true - what Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling said - that evidently is still under review. And it looks like they were, once again, in a rush and moved hastily without even knowing if this is something that they can enforce. It is just, it's just a challenge. [00:30:31] Lex Vaughn: Come on, Burien - get some new people on that council. [00:30:34] Crystal Fincher: Speaking of challenges that are pretty easy to foresee, or things that don't quite make sense based on what we're being told - is news that, hey, finally, finally, the mayor's office who has had the funding to do this and for some reason hasn't for a long time, announced that they're going to launch a dual responder program. However, this dual responder program would still fail to civilianize the crisis response, which is what the mayor's office had initially said they wanted to - we had a conversation with Deputy Mayor, then-Deputy Mayor Monisha Harrell on this show about that before. But in the way this is going to be - in the way it's proposed, in the way it looks like it's going to happen - a new Community Assisted Response and Engagement Department, or CARE Department, will launch a dual dispatch pilot consisting of teams of two civilians, some of whom are behavioral health providers, who can be dispatched alongside SPD officers. And so this program hired six responders so far, $1.8 million has been proposed from the mayor in the 2024 budget. And in the press conference, which I think you said that you watched, they talked about this being similar to or based on programs that have gotten acclaim in a few other major cities. However, ours is substantively different than theirs - in that, theirs don't rely on co-response - meaning that an armed officer has to go with someone all the time - or they have options out of that, that is not a requirement of the dispatch. And there's good reason for that. One, most of these calls don't apply to that. In Denver's program, they found that they only needed to call for armed police response 2% of the time where their crisis responders were dispatched - especially as you said before, when they're saying they don't have enough cops to do the job that is expected of them, you would think that'd be like - Oh, that's great news. We can deploy our resources in areas where they can be more effective. [00:32:44] Lex Vaughn: That's why it's probably a dual response. They don't want our city to discover that we don't need police at every single one of these calls. And it's unfortunate that the mayor and this police department are more concerned with how can we get this police department more money, more people. It's, I guess, a rough transition here - to say the least - to get this city to wrap its head around the fact that you do not need police at every single one of these 911 calls. And in fact, it's very dangerous for a lot of these cops to show up, especially in cases where someone's having a mental health crisis or something. When I was a reporter at The Seattle Times, I unfortunately reported on cases where someone was having a mental health crisis and they were shot for not immediately obeying orders. That was, you know - I - if you have a loved one that struggles with mental health issues, the police - they're not who you want to call. It's dangerous, 'cause I think a lot of police are - they're just too willing and ready to shoot as soon as they're not listened to. And so I'm very disappointed that this is a dual response thing, when it's so clear we need that CARE team to just respond on their own, with their own expertise, without anyone armed on the scene. [00:34:09] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and especially in crisis calls, armed responses - an armed presence - is its own escalator. [00:34:17] Lex Vaughn: Yes - yeah, like duh - for anyone. And then imagine you're also in crisis - just not a great mix. [00:34:24] Crystal Fincher: It's challenging. You know, Crosscut previously reported that while only 2.2% of calls for service in Seattle were crisis calls, those calls accounted for 25% of Seattle officers' use of force. And if we recall, Charleena Lyles in 2017 was a perfect example of that, really unfortunate example of that. It's just really challenging. They seem determined to have an officer respond - to your point, it seems like they are afraid of relinquishing anything. But that seems to be happening - if you listen to their logic - at the expense of everyone else's safety and more effective deployment across the city. Then another really meaningful point brought up is just the scale of this pilot - what are we really able to see? [00:35:12] Lex Vaughn: Six people, right? [00:35:12] Crystal Fincher: Six people - yeah, absolutely. And that is completely out of line with the scale of the programs in these other cities. [00:35:21] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, Albuquerque - 70 people. They're really doing it. [00:35:25] Crystal Fincher: Look at how many officers we have. Look at the size of the city. And one thing that's been noticed by lots of people for a long time is that we put out these pilots, we say we need to see results, and we need to get data on them to see if they're gonna continue. And you just throw a couple people out there - and you can't reasonably expect any meaningful intervention from a few people. Now when you do look at that, they do outsize good for what they're there. So it's like, just imagine if we were to appropriately invest and deploy in numbers that could effectively manage this problem citywide. But we continue not to do that, which is frustrating, and watch more of the budget continue to go to police officers, vacant police officer positions - and it's just frustrating. [00:36:16] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, I mean, it's like the police department and the City are trying to make this argument that we don't have enough officers. And it's like - Well, what if we're just not doing this efficiently at all? And it's just unfortunate to see that the priority here seems to be retaining dependence on a police department that is as bloated as possible, and not just creating a more efficient public health and public safety kind of operation system here. Like you said, a lot of these calls - they do not need an armed cop, especially one that might be barreling through a high pedestrian area at 75 miles per hour, coming to the call. And if we're really interested in public safety here, I really think we don't need more cops. We need to use the cops we have more efficiently, with more accountability. And expand this other program, the CARE program, and let them respond independently to a lot of these calls and expand it. And I'm worried that this program is being set up to fail. Some people might say that - Well, this is better than nothing. It's a start. - I guess, but I think it's being set up to fail. This is six people - not that many people - and they're not being allowed to be the first to intervene, which is really where I think the magic of those programs happens. It's like - Wow, the situation did not get escalated. This person got the help they needed without a gun on the scene. [00:37:48] Crystal Fincher: And it feels like someone is coming to help, right? And it really is the difference in - is someone coming to help me, or is someone coming to control me? Is someone coming to make me do something, to stop me? [00:37:59] Lex Vaughn: Yep, that is - that's it - right there, yeah. [00:38:04] Crystal Fincher: And that makes such a big difference when someone is already in a place where they're unstable, where they're worried, concerned, where they're not perceiving things as well as they can be. And then expecting them then to be able to - oftentimes be calmer than the officer that's responding - and just rationally follow everything. You're being called because this person is not behaving rationally, right - so we know that from jump - everything else that stems from that, it's predictable that that's not going to have a great outcome. And again, we have to get to dealing with the root causes of this. There's nothing a police person can do to address a behavioral health crisis. [00:38:47] Lex Vaughn: That's not their expertise at all. [00:38:49] Crystal Fincher: That's not their expertise, it's not their job. It's not their - no training, no resources in order to do that. The people who actually can make those connections - who do understand our complicated and inadequate, but you know, system - and to try and get people in there and to get them some help that they need, so this is not a chronic problem. So this doesn't escalate. It's really important. The last story I want to talk about today is the emergence of a new GOP candidate in Washington's 3rd Congressional District. This district is now notorious for being one of the biggest districts in an upset race in 2022, where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez beat Joe Kent, a very far right-wing Republican in 2022 - biggest upset race in the country. And so Joe Kent announced that he was running again, he's been running, and he's endorsed by the likes of Trump and you know, a lot of really, really, really far right extremists. And that is what a lot of people blame on his loss that - wow, even that was too much for this pretty solidly Republican district. So it looks like other Republicans in the state - I don't want to call them moderate Republicans, 'cause I don't think that is an accurate descriptor - but ones who realize that Joe Kent- [00:40:11] Lex Vaughn: Maybe just smarter, like more strategic Republicans. [00:40:16] Crystal Fincher: Right - is a tainted brand, right? And are trying to operate more strategically. And so Leslie Lewallen, a city councilmember in Camas in Clark County, has entered the race and drawn early support and endorsements from prominent Republicans like former Attorney General Rob McKenna, former Secretary of State Sam Reed, and Tiffany Smiley. And Tiffany Smiley, who's the challenger to Patty Murray in 2022. And so they are not going the MAGA route, they're trying to go the other route. Although if you look at the issues that she's talking about, this is really, you know, how they're dressing up someone who holds a lot of the same core beliefs when it comes to women's choice, when it comes to these really troubling attacks and book bans that we're seeing in schools, attacks on the trans community and the LGBTQ community - just a lot of worrisome things. This is not, you know, what we had previously described as a moderate Republican. This is still a pretty far right Republican, but it's not Joe Kent. And, you know, Joe Kent is out of touch with reality in a variety of things - it's hard to really explain how wild this guy is without just being like - look at this, I cannot - I had to do this in 2022. Like I can't do justice to what this is with an explanation, just watch him talk. [00:41:42] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, him and Loren Culp were kind of an insane, you know, pair to talk about back then. [00:41:48] Crystal Fincher: They were just not in touch with reality. But, you know, this will be interesting. And we see this effort, with Dave Reichert in the governor's race, to try and dress someone up as a more moderate Republican to kind of assuage some of the fears that people have of someone too extreme. MAGA - the MAGA brand - is not popular throughout the state, that's not a winning brand in the state. And Republicans have been losing ground because of it. But I think, especially when we look at a lot of these races in King County - like I'm thinking of the 8th Congressional District race, the Reagan Dunn race against Kim Schrier - even someone who has, you know, traditionally branded themselves as a moderate, they still hold beliefs that are pretty repugnant to lots of people. Kind of first and foremost, the issue of abortion rights, right - these are pretty fundamental rights. The issue of privacy protections - pretty fundamental rights. Wanting a stronger safety net - pretty fundamental, you know, support by a lot of people in the state. And Republicans seem to disagree with that. [00:42:48] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, or at a minimum, they're just spineless because Reagan Dunn, at certain points, has - if it's advantageous to him, you know, hasn't been as conservative, but just depends on where he's trying to mold himself. [00:43:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. [00:43:04] Lex Vaughn: Yeah. [00:43:04] Crystal Fincher: So at this moment, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has a pretty substantial financial lead. I think I read that she has like a million and a half dollars and Joe Kent has like a shade under $500,000. But I - this will be a district that this cycle, I'm sure, attracts a lot of attention and a lot of outside spending. Definitely on the list for Republicans to pick up. Now, you know, we're sitting here as Republicans just kicked out Speaker McCarthy, which makes Patty Murray now second in line to the presidency since there's no current Speaker of the House. But, you know, Republicans have problems from the very top of the ticket all the way on down, so it'll be interesting just to see how they manage this chaos. [00:43:49] Lex Vaughn: Yeah, well, this whole next year is gonna be an interesting Republican identity journey - I don't know if it's a crisis, they've kind of been in crisis for a little while, but it's - they're gonna have to make some decisions about who they're gonna be in the future. Are they gonna continue the Trump route or are they trying to find this other, I don't know. I guess almost as far right, but just a different tone, different leaders at the helm kind of leading that. I don't know. [00:44:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, very - it'll be interesting to see. And, you know, we'll have another shutdown battle coming up in about a month. Who knows if we'll have a speaker by then? Who knows if we'll be in any better position for anything by then? [00:44:39] Lex Vaughn: I just heard yesterday there's a possibility of Trump being a speaker? [00:44:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so- [00:44:45] Lex Vaughn: Oh my God, I didn't know that was a thing. [00:44:47] Crystal Fincher: Fun fact is the Speaker of the House does not have to be a member of the House or Congress. So yeah, they can appoint - they could do that with Trump if they wanted to, I think? [00:44:58] Lex Vaughn: Ahh, this world is insane. [00:45:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's, you know - it is frustrating - the Republicans are not a party serious about governing right now. And I just wish we would contend with that more directly. Or at least- [00:45:14] Lex Vaughn: And the people who vote for them. Like what are you doing? [00:45:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So we'll continue to follow this, but that will certainly - is an interesting new element in that 3rd Congressional District race that will have impacts here locally and nationally. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, October 6th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Founder and Editor of The Needling, Lex Vaughn. You can find Lex on Twitter @AlexaVaughn, V-A-U-G-H-N. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter and most other networks @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [00:46:41] Lex Vaughn: Bye.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts, Ashley Nerbovig! Ashley and Crystal discuss (and rant!) about continued and international outrage over Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG) leaders caught on body cam laughing about a fellow Seattle Police Department (SPD) officer running over and killing Jaahnavi Kandula - how the SPOG contract makes it near impossible to discipline or fire officers, Mayor Bruce Harrell's responsibility in creating the mess by voting for the contract as a City councilmember and in possibly getting us out of it by delivering a better one from the current negotiations, and how our recruiting problem is a culture problem in a competitive marketplace. The show then covers passage of the War on Drugs 2.0 bill by Seattle City Council, the start of the trial for three Tacoma officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis, and a rally held by Seattle City employees for fair pay. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Ashley Nerbovig, at @AshleyNerbovig. Resources “Tanya Woo, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Tammy Morales, Candidate for Seattle City Council District 2” from Hacks & Wonks   “Seattle Police Officer Probably Won't Get Fired for Laughing about Jaahnavi Kandula's Death” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Police response time to Wing Luke Museum 911 calls raises questions about priorities” by Libby Denkmann and Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Seattle Police Officer Hurls Racist Slur at Chinese-American Neighbor” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “‘Feel safer yet?' Seattle police union's contempt keeps showing through” by Danny Westneat from The Seattle Times   “Amid SPD controversy, Mayor Harrell leads with empathy” from Seattle Times Editorial Board   “Seattle Launches Drug War 2.0” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Council Passes New Law Empowering City Attorney to Prosecute People Who Use Drugs in Public” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   @daeshikjr on Twitter: “BREAKING: Seattle City Councilmembers revived a recently voted down bill that many community activists are calling War on Drugs 2.0. We spoke with Sara on her campaign trail about her experience with drugs, mushrooms, and what she hoped to accomplish while in office. …”   “Trial begins for Tacoma officers charged with killing Manuel Ellis” by Jared Brown from KNKX   “Trial of 3 Tacoma police officers accused of killing Manuel Ellis in 2020 gets underway” by Peter Talbot from The News Tribune   “Historic trial begins for 3 officers charged in killing of Manny Ellis” by Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times   @tacoma_action on Twitter: “Here's how you can support the family of Manuel Ellis during the trial…”   Trial Information for State v. Burbank, Collins and Rankine | Pierce County Courts & Law    “City Workers Rally Their Asses Off” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed this week's topical shows, we continued our series of Seattle City Council candidate interviews. All 14 candidates for 7 positions were invited and we had in-depth conversations with many of them. This week, we presented District 2 candidates, Tanya Woo and Tammy Morales. Have a listen to those and stay tuned over the coming weeks - we hope these interviews will help voters better understand who these candidates are and inform their choices for the November 7th general election. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time, today's co-host: staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and courts - and rocking that coverage - Ashley Nerbovig. Hello. [00:01:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Hey, Crystal - thanks. Hi. [00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Glad to have you on the show. We have no shortage of things to talk about and particularly this week where everything public safety was exploding, imploding, just all over the place. I want to start off talking about a story that is now making international headlines - the release of the video of an SPD officer, a SPOG executive, mocking the death of Jaahnavi Kandula, who was killed by another policeman while she was just a pedestrian just walking and run over by a policeman who - it didn't seem like he had his lights and sirens on, going over 70 miles per hour. Just such a tragedy in the first place, and then outrage was the dominant feeling nationally, internationally when that video came out. What is going to happen or what does it look like is going to happen? You wrote a great piece this week about that. [00:02:42] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, he's not gonna get fired - for sure - unless something wildly out of the normal process happens. And even if that does, the arbitration process is such that they would look at the SPOG contract and be like - There was nothing in this that he did that's actually fireable. - and it's super frustrating to watch. And in that story, I break down how we've seen these cases before - that cops have said really outrageous stuff, or even done something pretty outrageous, or something that the public looks at as pretty outrageous - and the reaction has been either it's a written reprimand or it's unsustained findings. One of the examples I gave was that there was multiple officers in one car who - one of them said - they accelerate toward protesters, people can be heard to be laughing. And so one of them says - I effing hate these people - or something along those lines. And because they couldn't narrow it in and prove who said it, and none of the cops inside said who said it - it's frustrating, but it also makes sense when you read the SPOG contract - because they have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence, which is more than 50%, which sounds like a pretty low standard to hop over. But actually, I think they did a review of a bunch of different cops' policies on what they have to prove to require discipline across the country and SPD is in a very small minority - the majority of people have something that's lower or at a preponderance of evidence, and our standard is right above it. You see all of this outrage, and then you see Andrew Lewis and Lisa Herbold and Mayor Harrell and SPOG all say, essentially - We want to watch the OPA process, we're excited to watch that investigation. - as if they don't know that anyone reading the SPOG contract, anyone who's read enough OPA cases knows that this is going to end in the cop continuing to be on the force. And to some extent, you can make the argument that if this was one isolated comment, maybe it wouldn't be a firing that was justified. But when you look at his entire career, and then when you also look at what the actual other punishments are, right? You can get suspended, but you don't have that suspension served consecutively - you can serve it throughout a year. So it means that - the whole point of having a suspension is that they don't get paid, and it hurts their bottom line, and it's something to avoid. If you're just serving out a 15-day suspension over a year, and then you're making it up with tons of overtime, what are the consequences for cops in this city? And the answer is that our police accountability systems do not have actual consequences for our officers right now. [00:05:28] Crystal Fincher: Not at all. And it's infuriating. And this has kicked off a conversation that we've had before - just talking about the SPOG contract and the importance of that - there are a lot of people who are new here who weren't paying attention several years ago. There was an attempt that the City of Seattle - the council in particular - attempted to do this. They passed police accountability legislation that tightened that up. But then the current SPOG contract that's in place - was approved by Mayor Harrell on the council, by the way, who voted for the current contract that is currently handcuffing him and preventing him from being able to do anything about this - that superseded many of the City ordinances that dealt with this. And one thing that a lot of people don't know is that contract can supersede City law. So the things that the City thinks is happening, the process that we have - our democratic, our initiative process, the council process - all falls by the wayside when this is approved. And at the time, this was approved on a narrow vote - this was not, the conversation leading up to the approval of this current contract was not like - Oh, this looks great, it's fine. Lorena González infamously toiled over the vote that she was going to do, and later said that she regretted voting to approving it. But they were warned that this was going to happen. They were warned that moving backwards on accountability was going to produce really unsavory results. And lo and behold, here we are. So once again, we're in a situation where everyone - almost everyone - agrees. Most members of the public, of the national community, international community agree this is egregious. This is unacceptable. And the City's handcuffed because of this current contract. And I just want people to be aware that the next contract is currently being negotiated. The mayor's office - the same mayor who approved this current contract - is currently negotiating this next contract. And is Bruce Harrell going to ensure that something like this can't happen again with no remedy, or recourse, or consequence? That's really going to be up to how this contract is negotiated and structured. I don't know what's going to happen with this officer in this incident - he has a long record himself of issues, complaints - and I don't know what's happening with that is going to go through this process. But the executive's office, the council who will ultimately have to approve this contract does have a say in whether or not something like this can happen again. And I think they owe the residents of the city assurances that this shouldn't happen. We're seeing so many of these examples. This isn't the first example of a death mocked - it's just the first one that we have on video that's public. There was a tombstone before, there's been social media posts before. And also the fact that this was, I believe, VP of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. When you have leaders doing this - similar to the assistant police chief in Kent who displayed literal Nazi memorabilia - that speaks to culture. These are leaders. These are people dictating what we have here. And tangentially, and this is going on while we're having a conversation about police being short-staffed, while we're having a conversation about how hard it is to recruit - after the city has thrown money and recruitment bonuses and retainment bonuses at people. And can we just acknowledge that someone looking at this, now that they have the choice to join any police department, basically, they want to - they're all hiring - why would they join Seattle? This is the recruiting problem here. It's this culture. It's this continued drumbeat of toxic, distasteful stuff. [00:09:06] Ashley Nerbovig: I think you're right about it being a culture problem. But I also think that the strength of our SPOG contract - you could make an argument that these are some of the most protected City employees. And it's across the board that people don't want to be cops. And it makes sense because even if you take away all of the controversies, local governments overall are struggling right now to recruit people for any job. And then on top of it, you're talking about a job that requires a lot of no work from home - we've had a complete culture shift in what we value about work. And I think when you look at what the job of being a cop is, it's you have to live in a certain location, basically, you can live - although Auderer lives in Olympia, I think, so you can live far away - but you have to be able to go to work in-person. And then on top of it, you're tied to all of this really negative associations that we have with cops, and this shift in how we've thought about cops. And you're competing in a really tight job market where there's a lot of really - yes, you get a lot of money being a Seattle police officer, but that requires a lot of overtime. You can make that same money just like having a normal 40-hour workweek if you work something tech, and it can also be more flexible and more remote. I just think that the problem is exactly that being a cop is not appealing, and we can't change that - no one wants these jobs. And so why are we not talking about what people do want to work and starting from that place of - people do want to help people. I think a lot of cops in those positions talk about reshifting budget priorities, and that would mean changing their jobs. But cops were the first people to tell me that they didn't want to be social workers, that they weren't trying to do social work - and that they felt like they didn't have the tools and they weren't the people to be doing mental health intervention, or drug abuse intervention. Or homelessness intervention. You can't help someone unsheltered when you're a cop. The only thing cops can do is jail. I thought something really interesting - I know this is something we're going to talk about in a bit - and I really want to say something that I thought about with the SPOG contract. One of the things that I can't remember if it was Teresa Mosqueda or Morales who said it, but one of them was like - If we aren't funding these treatment options - when they were talking about the drug vote - If we aren't funding these treatment options, and we aren't funding these diversion programs, the only thing cops are going to be able to do if they want to get someone off the street is put them in jail. And I think that people have this idea that cops have other options, but that's their tool. It's not a choice for them. The only solution for cops is to arrest - that is their main job activity. And just this idea that people don't want these jobs, they are not effective for the problems that we have, and yet we have this desperation - and Bruce Harrell has this desperation to cling to tough-on-crime policies. And it's dumb. And you don't see any solutions, but people like to pretend like they saw some improvement - when they just like the feeling of, oh - you don't see anything change when you put a tough-on-crime policy. There's this idea that all of our - anytime we do something that's like violence intervention or like a community-based approach - that we don't see the results very quickly. And it always is so funny to me, because I'm like, you don't see - no one in their day-to-day life, if we tomorrow said you can arrest - other than maybe someone who went downtown and all of the homeless people, we can't even put anyone in the King County Jail. So I don't know what they're talking about right now, but you don't actually see a marked improvement - you just get a shift in media narratives - that's all that changes, really, in my opinion. [00:12:49] Crystal Fincher: This is the same thing that we're doing - and your point is exactly correct - we're only funding one thing. And what you fund, what you put resources to, is what you're going to have. We are so desperately short of other support services, behavioral health support services. And there are entities in the process of addressing that, right? Absolutely frustrating that it's not here now, there is some work being done there. So progress is being made largely at the county level and regionally. But this is not going to work. This is the same old thing. The thing that I find troubling, particularly as a progressive political consultant, is that this makes passing progressive policy harder. Because if you dress something up like progressive policy - Oh, it's really important that we treat root causes. And yeah, we all believe it. - and they all say that until it's time to actually put their money where their mouth is, to actually do the thing, to implement it. And then what we get is this warmed-over piece of legislation that does one of the things - yes, we can arrest - and makes it harder than it was before to do the other things. And it was astronomically hard before. We know what's going to happen with this. So the real question is, so what are they going to blame for the failure of this next? What excuse is coming up next? I talk to a lot of people, lay people, some people - I just like hearing an unfiltered opinion of someone who's not an insidery insider and paying attention to all the policy and stuff. And you would be shocked by how many people who are - they don't consider themselves super leftist, probably general Democrats, but they don't really pay attention to much - who are under the impression that Seattle's progressive city council has run amok. And it's like, when it comes to public safety, they are not passing progressive policy. Unfortunately, the conservative council - that is the policy that we have and that we've continued. And when everybody rushes to put that label on it - we're going to see a lot of political communication coming up soon, where I'm sure everybody is going to call themselves a progressive, probably pragmatic progressive, responsible progressive - but like they cling to that word and they want to present their policy is that. But when it's not, all it does is hurt actual progressive policy. So it's important for people to stand up and be like - No, we see that, and we see that it's not what the community is demanding and asking for. It's just really frustrating. We should probably get back to some of this news a little bit. [00:15:02] Ashley Nerbovig: There's just one last thing I want to say about Danny Westneat - this is going back a couple topics, but it was something that you said about the SPOG contract and that this is the leadership of SPOG. And Danny had a - bless his heart, he tried, probably - I quote tweeted it when I read the first couple of graphs. And then I went back and read his whole column about Auderer - I can't even say his last name - but the SPOG VP's comments. And he said quite a few things that were just absolutely ridiculous, where he talks about how SPOG uses public safety as a bargaining chip and says essentially - Oh, it'd be a shame if something happened to this beautiful city of yours. And then he goes on to give them that bargaining chip and say that Seattle desperately needs more cops. And then he goes to talking about how - he names a city that basically did defund because they also broke up their cop union. And it's just such a wild series of thoughts. And he concludes it on - SPOG needs to clean house. And it's so frustrating - even if you're just thinking of it logically - if you are a member of SPOG, and your vice president has gotten out of this many OPA investigations with little to no punishment - you don't think they know who is leading them? That's who I want as my union vice president - I want someone who's gotten away with a bunch of stuff - that is how you stay safe and stay protected - and who's going to clean house - the leadership? The leadership is the problem. Anyway, I just wanted to fully round that out by giving Danny like a 2 out of 5 stars on that column. [00:16:35] Crystal Fincher: There are a lot of people who are like - Wow, okay, didn't think there was going to be a day where many of them agreed with Danny Westneat. He got some of the way there. I think one of the challenges with that is a tendency to view unions as separate from workers, and the union as separate from the cops. They are elected by their peers in the union - this is representative of the culture, this is the result of them saying these are the people we feel best represent us. And this is what it is. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is - but here we are. And it's hard for me to separate SPOG versus police because SPOG is police. And it's just time we had a serious conversation about real accountability. And it's a tangible conversation - there is someone responsible for this, there is an intervention that can work here - we can negotiate this. It's up to the mayor, the people on negotiating committee, it's up to the council who's going to approve this. This doesn't just happen - they're permitted to happen by a contract that is in place. And if we're unhappy with it, and if City Hall can't see that the people are unhappy with a contract that enables this, the question is - particularly for Bruce Harrell, who is the boss of the police department - they literally report to him, police chief literally reports to him, direct report, his responsibility. What is he going to do now? Is he going to respond to this and say, I'm going to ensure this doesn't happen again? Because that's a buck-stops-here attitude that is normally expected of an executive. That's the job. What is he going to do to ensure this doesn't happen again? How is he going to live up to his word that he's going to improve the culture and improve public safety? We're waiting. And it seems like they're just permitting this. They're just - Oh, that's too bad. [00:18:20] Ashley Nerbovig: The Seattle editorial board said he's been leading with empathy. If anyone really wants to rage out, read that editorial. I don't know if Bruce called and said he was going to cancel the whole city's subscription to The Seattle Times, but it's just absolute garbage. Kandula was killed while Officer Kevin Dave was responding to a guy who had too much cocaine and wasn't even ODing. Rich, my editor, said this to me earlier this week, where he was like, we were talking about the drug vote, and he was saying - This is just another example of how cops shouldn't be the ones responding to people overdosing. EMTs can go to these things. [00:18:56] Crystal Fincher: And do in most other cities - without police, to be clear. [00:18:59] Ashley Nerbovig: And you mentioned earlier that it was unclear about his lights. And I don't know for sure what was going on there, because I know his in-car video wasn't working. But I've read another OPA case where someone had said that a cop was just turning on his lights and sirens to get through red lights - and the justification for that that they showed was that it was like - oh, he was tactically using his lights and sirens, which means that they only turn them on to get through lights and stuff, even though he's responding to a call. And when they do that, it means that their in-car video doesn't turn on. And that's allowed because - oh, it's a tactic. And super curious to see the end of this OPA report for Kevin Dave. EMTs are not worried about sneaking up on people - they just turn on their lights and go. But yeah, it's going to be really frustrating to watch. [00:19:45] Crystal Fincher: So now can you break down what this legislation does? Because I've seen it characterized in a number of different ways - Oh, it's making drugs illegal. It's like doing different things. What did this legislation actually change? [00:19:56] Ashley Nerbovig: This particular piece of legislation - to do my full roundup of this - everybody knows that in 2021, the Washington Supreme Court struck down our felony drug possession law. The Washington State Legislature scrambled to pass something - and they passed this idea of we're going to do two referrals to treatment before we arrest anyone, and we're only going to arrest on a misdemeanor, and that went across the state for people in possession of drugs. That went on for two years and it was unworkable - they didn't structure it, they didn't create a database for people to be marking referrals - it's called a stopgap measure. It was one of those things where it was a really half thought-out piece of what potentially could be progressive legislation, did more harm than just making it a misdemeanor and then trying to talk about decriminalization a little bit later - I think that might have actually ended up being strategically a better way to go, except you would have seen a bunch of people arrested in that time. The result is that they came back this session and they said - Okay, no. They had that big fight and they said - We're going to make it a gross misdemeanor, your first two offenses you're going to get a maximum sentence of 180 days, any offenses after that you're going to go up to 364 days. And they said - We prefer people defer to treatment, we prefer cops defer. - that was one thing that Herbold and Lewis both kept saying is - their City bill, that it was different from the state bill and that it starts the diversion out of the system process at the cop level before people even have a case started, whereas they kept describing the state bill as getting started. There are multiple places throughout the system that you can get diverted - you can get diverted before you get arrested so there's never anything on your record, you can get diverted after you've been arrested by the cops and now the prosecutors are in charge of your case and they defer any charges or defer any charges from getting actually convicted and then you're able to get it off of your record. So that's deferred prosecution. And then there's, you can get stuff - after you've been sentenced, you can get stuff wiped off your record. The argument that the City was making in how their bill was different from the state bill is they're saying - Oh, we really make it clear that our policy is not to arrest. The state bill does too. They say that it's their preference that people are diverted to treatment rather than be arrested. They also put a bunch of deferred prosecution stuff in there to divert people out of the system once they have charges against them. It's easier to talk about what this bill didn't do. It set a policy that said - This is our preference by the City of Seattle. So the state law was already in place. And now because it's a misdemeanor, state law passes - that starts in August, like everything gets implemented. So technically, cops could find people who were using drugs in public or possessing drugs in public and arrest them on a gross misdemeanor. And I think the using is such an interesting part of this, because there's nothing about possession as a charge that doesn't get at the same thing that public use does. When you make it all about public use and you add public use plus possession to this law, it is such a dog whistle towards people who are just mad at unhoused people. Morales said something really clear in the City Council vote, which was that this bill is not going to curb public use because the people who this bill is targeting have nowhere else to use. And so the state law passes, SPD cops can do this. But if SPD cops right now in Seattle - or right before this, because Harrell signed the bill yesterday - before this bill passed, if they arrested someone, their charges, because Seattle doesn't have its own ordinance, would have gone to Leesa Manion's office, the King County Prosecutor's, which would have made a ton of sense. King County Prosecutor's has a bunch of programs already in place for this - they've already been dealing with felony versions of this for a long time. But her office did a weird thing and got really like - We don't have the misdemeanor staff to handle this and these felony drug courts that we have wouldn't even apply to this. They did a bunch of workarounds - they really quashed the idea of these cases getting referred to them really early on, or at least they asked for money from us that apparently City Council just was unwilling to try to negotiate - or they were unwilling to negotiate trying to work out a contract. I never really understood what her motivations were with that or were slamming it down so hard. And so the City said - We're going to implement this ordinance and we're going to send these cases to our city attorney, Republican Ann Davison. So that's what this law does is that it doesn't - anyone who describes it - all that this law does is say that now Ann Davison can prosecute these cases, and also we would really like it if cops didn't arrest people on these charges. And it says - and I'll give them this - it adds a bunch of paperwork that cops now need to have when they do arrest someone on a drug possession charge. But I think Morales really summed it up really well where she said - This does not expand any diversion, it doesn't expand any treatment. - and this is probably a little bit more opinion-based, but - It doesn't improve public safety in any way. And I think that's so key is that we can ask - even if it's not, even if you aren't someone that believes in the nefarious, like that cops are all like Auderer and don't care about behavioral health and don't really look at people who are addicts on the street as someone that needs public health intervention - let's buy the premise that there are well-meaning cops out there who want to take these people to treatment. We do not have resources. And this idea that - in the City Council staff member, or the City Council Central Staff's memo, they said - Diversion requires social workers. These are actually much longer, much more resource-intensive cases. And cops are going to maybe divert the first or second time that they find someone, but then there's no resources to pick that person up - there's nothing to actually help them, maybe they're not ready to get treatment yet. And at some point, they're just going to arrest them and they're going to go through all of the charges. And maybe they're not going to go to jail because King County won't take them right now, but it's creating the structure for that. And they're still going to have to continue to show up at municipal court until they get something on their record that ends up putting them in jail. And we know how bad jail is - we know that it increases the chances of overdose. I think this bill kills people - I think that's the bottom line of what this bill does - is that it's going to kill a bunch of people, and make a bunch of people poorer, and do nothing to curb drug addiction, and fill our jails, and just continue the cycle of mass incarceration. [00:26:51] Crystal Fincher: The outcomes from this type of policy are clear. We have so much information about what happens when you do just fund, enable sending people to jail without doing anything to address the root causes for why they're there. Also, there are some people rejoicing over this - like it is going to help - I'll be curious to see their evaluation after a period of time, to see what their perception of what results. But it's just frustrating because we could choose to do what has shown to be effective elsewhere. Everybody is frustrated. I don't think anyone is happy. I don't want to be in a space where someone is using publicly, right? And perhaps inhaling secondhand something or whatever. But I also recognize that generally people who do use in public don't have another place to use. And if it is an issue of - addiction isn't logical, right? Addiction isn't reasonable. It's not - Oh, there are consequences for me going to jail now, so I'm just going to stop being addicted. The thing about addiction is that you can't decide to stop being addicted. It's not up to you. And that people fall into addiction for a variety of reasons. And being addicted is a reality that so many people face - to treat it as like they're less than human for struggling with that particular issue is ridiculous. But we do that from a public safety perspective. And as you said, this is going to largely wind up targeting the homeless - that's usually who this applies to - people. We can talk about the drug habits of executives and rich people, and the rates of drug use are not low across the board. I always find it so curious. We drug test minimum wage and low wage workers, but not high wage executives. I'm pretty confident what results we would see if we did that. There's an interesting video with Sara Nelson - yeah, speaking of politicians using drugs, and then voting on drug ordinances - but Sara Nelson has a place to use privately. That's the difference. [00:28:52] Ashley Nerbovig: Because we're going after public use, we're not going after possession. And the casual way she talks about it - you are aware that you are growing drugs, and you're telling people where to find drugs - and I can hear her argument against this, right? But the point of it is that drugs are not inherently dangerous, and it was incredibly frustrating to watch that video. And then think about the fact that when this was in front of the Public Safety Committee, Mosqueda came out and said - I want to make it very clear that lots of public health agencies at this point have said that breathing in secondhand fentanyl smoke is not dangerous to your health. I am someone who opens a window if someone blows vape smoke too close to me - I don't like it, I don't want that smell, I am not totally convinced that the smell will not linger. But it's like that, right - it's a smell, I'm not worried about getting a nicotine contact high. And the way that fentanyl gets demonized as the worst drug that we've ever seen, it's part of how we can dehumanize the people who are using it. And I think it's so interesting, because if you ask someone to class their own drugs, shrooms and weed and cocaine would be the bourgeoisie of drugs - they're allowed, it's fine - alcohol. All of those things are totally fine. And the people who use them are not degenerates or any way bad. Maybe cocaine. But for the most part, we are totally okay with those kinds of drugs, no matter how alcohol is still one of the most harmful substances in our society. Whenever I call the King County Medical Examiner's Board to get the overdose deaths, it's overdose deaths and deaths due to alcoholism. But they're longer term, right? So I'm not saying that - fentanyl is absolutely killing people - it's in everything. And it is a new, very scary problem because we don't have a ton of ways to treat it. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of what we're seeing, which is you had someone like Sara Nelson who struggled with her own story of addiction. But as soon as it becomes a drug that they view as dirty or not fun to scavenge for, you get this attitude of - We need to crack down on this. And that's how it's got to be a punishment-based system - it's not a conversation, it's not help, it's not treatment - we've got to really show these people the errors, the way to be, and improve their life. And it's just so condescending. [00:31:30] Crystal Fincher: This is the crack playbook at play. And again, to be clear, not at all saying that fentanyl is not very troublesome, problematic, and that we don't want people using that. Those are all true. But to say somehow a unique and unsolvable addiction issue as opposed to opioids, as opposed to all of the other things. The one thing that we know is that there are new drugs created all the time for a variety of things. There's going to be something more potent. Fentanyl is not the last, right? It's just the current. There is going to be a next. We've been playing this cat and mouse game with the War on Drugs, with all that we're doing - it's here. But hearing the language around that is the same tactic that happened with crack, right? And the justification to pass a ton of laws, super harsh penalties, mandating mandatory time, adding it as a strike for possessing crack, lower thresholds for dealing and all of that, as opposed to cocaine, which was used by a different demographic largely and fueled there. This is pretty transparent. And unfortunately, you hear a lot of the rhetoric in public meetings. You hear it from people - Oh man, this fentanyl, these people are like zombies, this is something completely new we haven't seen before. Those are all the same things that they said with crack. Those are all the same things that they say with the new drug that they want to use when they're in the mood to crack down and jail people - here is where we're at. Acting like fentanyl is just - oh, if you're addicted, you're lost, you're hopeless, is untrue. It is a dangerous drug. We need to address it. Public health approaches have a better record of doing that than punitive jail-based approaches. But it's a problem that we do need to get our arms around, but we make it harder to do that when we pursue policies to jail - which are very expensive to do in every single way. And then say - Sorry, we just don't have the resources to provide more treatment services, to provide more behavioral health services, to provide more housing, to provide detox for people. Those are all necessary for us to deal with this problem, and we just aren't doing it. I would like to do it. I would like to meaningfully address this - most people would - but this makes it much harder. I do want to talk about this week, a very important - and for our state historic - trial starting, of the three officers accused of murdering Manny Ellis. What is happening here? [00:33:58] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah. So they're still in jury selection. It's going to be a long, drawn-out process. I think opening statements start October 2nd. And for people who don't know the case, Manny Ellis was an unarmed Black man who was in Tacoma - this was March before George Floyd's death, and there are so many parallels. Everything that is terrible about George Floyd is terrible in this case. Bob Ferguson comes in, says that he's going to investigate this case, does an investigation. Tacoma Police Department does not cooperate with Washington State Patrol. Washington State Patrol and AG Ferguson ends up creating this probable cause statement and now three officers, three men are all on trial this week. Or the trial is starting and jury selection is starting. And there's one guy who - I can't remember his name now - but he's live tweeting all of it. And there's been some really interesting tidbits. One of the jurors - the judge asked if there were any jurors who might have conflicts presiding over a case involving law enforcement, no one raised their hands, and then the judge looks at this guy and says - But didn't you say you have a brother in law enforcement? And there's no other details, but that's where it's starting right now. And it'll be a really interesting case - it's horrible to see these cases get to this point - and you wonder about, I don't know anything about the disciplinary records of these cops. But yeah, that's where it's starting. And that's the background on it. [00:35:14] Crystal Fincher: And certainly - it's a trial. And I generally try not to follow these things or get emotionally invested in these trials - for good reason - they often don't seem to wind up with justice, and even what is justice when your loved one, someone you care about, a human being is killed. And just also lifting up - we hear about all these cases around the country - we have more than enough here locally. There's another police officer from Auburn currently awaiting trial for killing Jesse Sarey in Auburn. It's really troubling. And we also have family and friends of Manny dealing with this and having to once again hear the horrific details of this killing. And they're continuing to call for the firing of the cops who've been on payroll this entire time, who are still on payroll. There's a GoFundMe for the family. And court is something that people can show up to and show support if they want to do that also. It's a tragedy. And I hope the family is able to find peace and healing and that this can assist with that. I have no idea where they stand on this, but certainly, I'm thinking of them as this trial continues to go on. Last thing I want to talk about today is Seattle City employees rallying for fair pay. Why did this rally happen? [00:36:38] Ashley Nerbovig: Shout out to Hannah Krieg - she got all the great quotes for this one. This rally happened because apparently, and I'm quoting directly from her story - Bruce Harrell is funny, he's a funny guy, and if this is true, I believe it - Mayor Harrell told them to rally their asses off. The City started their negotiations for a pay increase of 1% and has settled on a pay increase of 2%. And the City workers are saying that's an insane way to start negotiations in one of the most expensive cities in the country. She puts this really good stat in there - that's a pay cut as the cost of, a 1% cost of living adjustment or even a 2% cost of living adjustment is a pay cut as the cost of living rose 8.7% this year. It's really important to note that the SPOG contract guarantees at minimum like a 1.5%, I think - I did a little tweet about this - it's plus COLA or something. But effectively, regardless of what their contract says, they have never gone a year without at least a 3% increase. Lieutenants and higher up guilds just got like a 4% increase. Sometimes I'll get these emails from the mayor's office that's - I'm really like unhappy with how you've portrayed us as prioritizing police. We really prioritize like other things too. - and it's, you can see it, where their money is going. So the workers are contract, are striking because they're not getting, at minimum, just keeping up with inflation. And the City of Seattle seems to think this is just like across the board, boy to cut is in general services and for the city. And that's - I really encourage people to follow Hannah's coverage on this because she's really on top of it. [00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's really challenging. We talked about police saying they have a shortage of officers and all of the action that has been taken to fix that including a retention bonus, healthy retention bonuses. And so we're talking about the shortages in the rest of the city, and it just doesn't seem like there is the interest in making sure the City is able to provide essential services and the level of service for everything that is currently happening and that people expect. There have been several council candidates who have said and agreed with - Yeah, we should be giving City workers the same kind of retention bonuses, investing in their retention, doing something tangible to actually address the shortage here. And we're going to be seeing Mayor Harrell's budget come out pretty soon. It's going to be interesting to see how he deals with that and what it is because a budget is a value statement - that's a document of values - where you're spending your money is what you value the most. And other things - you can talk about them and say they're great, but if you aren't funding them, clearly they were lower on the priority list in your estimation. And he may have his reasons to justify that. But it is disingenuous to say - Oh, I completely prioritize that, I value that, and I'm just not going to fund that while I'm going to fund this other thing. So it will be interesting to see. But it seems like the City has a lot of work to do to start to step up. And everyone on the campaign trail talks about their values and making sure people can live where they work, how important that is to our economy - and it absolutely is important - again, what tangibly is going to be done about that? What are we going to see in that budget? And if not, just what is really the tangible impact of that? So we'll continue to follow that. But certainly workers see some definite red flags there and are rallying to make sure people understand that this is a problem that has consequences for the entire city and beyond. And for all the plans that people say they have, they're going to rely on these employees to execute them. So we better make sure that there are people in place to deliver on the policy that we pass as a city. [00:40:34] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I hope we get a strike. I think it would be good for people to feel what happens when they don't - I think that a lot of these services are invisible. And we already see that SPOG is doing all these sick-outs and they're not responding to calls - and a lot of them are blaming it on the staffing shortages. When you hear about sick-outs, you get a little bit curious about those call response times. I hope it turns into a strike because I think people do need to realize how essential these workers are. [00:41:00] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the public - some people definitely see that, some people definitely don't. But a strike will be a failure, right? We're having a rally because an initial offer was pretty insulting. It was not a serious offer. It's a pay cut. If you're starting saying - Okay, how big a pay cut are you going to take to people who are already short-staffed and overworked? Because really, let's talk about it. When we talk about short staffing, that means that the same amount of work is falling on fewer heads. And that's a hard position to be in - and many of these positions aren't like super high-paid positions anyway. People are struggling to just pay their bills and work is getting harder, and now you're going to ask them to take a pay cut. And being disrespectful when that happens - Okay, go rally your ass off. So I hope there is more respect in this process and that lines of communication open and are productive. Because strikes are disruptive, right? They're not fun, they create a lot of drama. It may come to that - and I absolutely support workers' rights to strike and sometime that's necessary to get the job done - but I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope they are able to talk. But it's going to take more respect from the City perspective, realistically - they just aren't starting in a serious place. [00:42:14] Ashley Nerbovig: Yeah, I like what you said there. It would be a failure. My chaotic evil side is - yeah, disrupt it, show people that you exist and stuff. But you're right. It would suck for these workers to have to go on strike because - the no pay and I'm sure they have a fund - you're 100% correct. What I would actually like to see is Mayor Harrell care about these people the way that he has been so consistently able to show care for our police department. [00:42:44] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 22, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is the incredible Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was staff writer at The Stranger covering policing, incarceration and the courts, Ashley Nerbovig. You can find Ashley on Twitter at @AshleyNerbovig, A-S-H-L-E-Y N-E-R-B-O-V-I-G. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on just about every platform at @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks - wherever you want to listen to us, you can listen to us - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar of your favorite pod player. And be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen - it really helps us out. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Wednesday topical show, Crystal chats with Tammy Morales about her campaign for Seattle City Council District 2. Listen and learn more about Tammy and her thoughts on: [01:08] - Why she is running [01:51] - Lightning round! [8:43] - What is an accomplishment of hers that impacts District 2 [10:46] - City budget shortfall: Raise revenue or cut services? [14:45] - Public Safety: Alternative response [18:11] - Victim support [21:33] - Housing and homelessness: Frontline worker wages [23:38] - Climate change [27:10] - Transit reliability [30:55] - Bike and pedestrian safety [33:45] - Small business support [35:58] - Childcare: Affordability and accessibility [39:30] - Difference between her and opponent As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Tammy Morales at @TammyMoralesSEA.   Tammy Morales Tammy is a sitting City Councilmember running for re-election. She was one of the only supporters of I-135 for permanent affordable housing from the get-go. And Tammy's an urban planner who was previously an organizer for the Rainier Beach Action Coalition and a UFCW 21.  Her priority is to amplify the voices of Seattle's racial, climate, and economic justice coalitions. Tammy will continue her commitment to authentic community engagement that centers racial equity, especially when looking to prevent displacement, improve public health, create food security, and ensure access. She envisions a city where all single parents and their kids have full stomachs every single day; where every type of renter can afford where they sleep and have plenty left over for some fun; where children don't have to worry about bullets or cars as they make their way home from school or meet up with friends; where we prevent struggle; where we are kind to each other interpersonally and in policy; and where everyone has a fair shot at a happy and healthy life.   Resources Campaign Website - Tammy Morales   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am very excited to be welcoming current City councilmember and candidate for Seattle City Council District 2, Tammy Morales. Welcome. [00:01:03] Tammy Morales: Hi, Crystal - so good to see you. Thanks for having me. [00:01:06] Crystal Fincher: Good to see you. Well, I just wanted to start off asking - why did you choose to run for re-election? [00:01:12] Tammy Morales: Well, you know, when I ran last time, it was because I saw the displacement that's happening in the City of Seattle, particularly here in the South End and in our communities of color. And so I spent my first term working on trying to address those issues. And the work's not done - there's a lot more to do to increase affordability for our neighbors, to really build more community safety, and to make sure that we have the kind of healthy, vibrant neighborhoods that I know we can have in Seattle. And that's work that I'm really excited to continue to do. [00:01:51] Crystal Fincher: Well, and we're doing things a little bit differently than we have some of the past candidate interviews and implementing including a lightning round. [00:01:59] Tammy Morales: Okay. [00:02:00] Crystal Fincher: So we have some quick yes or no, or quick answer questions. Starting with - this year, did you vote yes on the King County Crisis Care Centers Levy? [00:02:10] Tammy Morales: Yes, I did. [00:02:11] Crystal Fincher: This year, did you vote yes on the Veterans, Seniors and Human Services Levy? [00:02:16] Tammy Morales: Yes, I did. [00:02:17] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote in favor of Seattle Social Housing Initiative 135? [00:02:22] Tammy Morales: You bet I did. [00:02:25] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Bruce Harrell or Lorena González for mayor? [00:02:32] Tammy Morales: I voted for Lorena. [00:02:33] Crystal Fincher: In 2021, did you vote for Nicole Thomas Kennedy or Ann Davison for Seattle City Attorney? [00:02:39] Tammy Morales: I voted for Nicole. [00:02:41] Crystal Fincher: In 2022, did you vote for Leesa Manion or Jim Ferrell for King County Prosecutor? [00:02:47] Tammy Morales: I voted for Leesa. [00:02:48] Crystal Fincher: Did you vote for Patty Murray or Tiffany Smiley for US Senate? [00:02:53] Tammy Morales: Patty Murray. [00:02:54] Crystal Fincher: Do you own or rent your residence? [00:02:57] Tammy Morales: I own. [00:02:58] Crystal Fincher: Are you a landlord? [00:03:00] Tammy Morales: I am not a landlord. [00:03:02] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to require landlords to report metrics, including how much rent they're charging, to better plan housing and development needs in District 2? [00:03:12] Tammy Morales: I did vote for more metrics for landlords, including more rental registration information in City Council - working with Councilmember Pedersen, which is not a well-expected partnership for me, but we work together well on some issues and that was one. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the mayor. [00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Are there any instances where you'd support sweeps of homeless encampments? [00:03:40] Tammy Morales: No. [00:03:41] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to provide additional funding for Seattle's Social Housing Public Development Authority? [00:03:47] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:03:48] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with King County Executive Constantine's statement that the King County Jail should be closed? [00:03:55] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:03:57] Crystal Fincher: Should parking enforcement be housed within SPD? [00:04:03] Tammy Morales: No. [00:04:05] Crystal Fincher: Would you vote to allow police in schools? [00:04:08] Tammy Morales: No. [00:04:09] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget for civilian-led mental health crisis response? [00:04:15] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:16] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocation in the City budget to increase the pay of human service workers? [00:04:21] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:23] Crystal Fincher: Do you support removing funds in the City budget for forced encampment removals and instead allocating funds towards a Housing First approach? [00:04:32] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you support abrogating or removing the funds from unfilled SPD positions and putting them towards meaningful public safety measures? [00:04:43] Tammy Morales: Yes, I voted on that a couple of times. [00:04:46] Crystal Fincher: Do you support allocating money in the City budget for supervised consumption sites? [00:04:51] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:52] Crystal Fincher: Do you support increasing funding in the City budget for violence intervention programs? [00:04:58] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:04:59] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't give the Office of Police Accountability and the Office of Inspector General subpoena power? [00:05:09] Tammy Morales: If that's the way it's presented, I would oppose that. [00:05:12] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that doesn't remove limitations as to how many of OPA's investigators must be sworn versus civilian? [00:05:23] Tammy Morales: I would oppose that, yes. [00:05:27] Crystal Fincher: Do you oppose a SPOG contract that impedes the ability of the City to move police funding to public safety alternatives? [00:05:37] Tammy Morales: Do I oppose - would I oppose that? Yes. [00:05:40] Crystal Fincher: Do you support eliminating in-uniform off-duty work by SPD officers? [00:05:46] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:05:47] Crystal Fincher: Will you ensure that trans and non-binary students are allowed to play on the sports teams that fit with their gender identities? [00:05:55] Tammy Morales: I certainly would support it - yeah. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to ensure that trans people can use bathrooms and public facilities that match their gender? [00:06:04] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:06:06] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree with the Seattle City Council's decision to implement the JumpStart Tax? [00:06:10] Tammy Morales: Yes, I do. [00:06:12] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to reduce or divert the JumpStart Tax in any way? [00:06:21] Tammy Morales: Reduce it - no. I'll say maybe divert, but it very much depends on for what purpose. [00:06:30] Crystal Fincher: Are you happy with Seattle's newly built waterfront? [00:06:37] Tammy Morales: Meh. [00:06:39] Crystal Fincher: Sometimes I do wish our viewers could see faces and this - a little bit - that was a very meh face. Do you believe return to work mandates, like the one issued by Amazon, are necessary to boost Seattle's economy? [00:06:53] Tammy Morales: No. [00:06:54] Crystal Fincher: Have you taken transit in the past week? [00:06:58] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:00] Crystal Fincher: Have you ridden a bike in the past week? [00:07:02] Tammy Morales: No. [00:07:03] Crystal Fincher: In the past month? [00:07:05] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:06] Crystal Fincher: Should Pike Place Market allow non-commercial car traffic? [00:07:10] Tammy Morales: No. [00:07:11] Crystal Fincher: Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:19] Tammy Morales: Should what hap-- [00:07:22] Crystal Fincher: I'll repeat the question. Should significant investments be made to speed up the opening of scheduled Sound Transit light rail lines? [00:07:37] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:38] Crystal Fincher: Should we make investments to speed it up? [00:07:41] Tammy Morales: I don't know if it's the money that is causing the problem or if there's some other issues, but - I'll say yes. [00:07:48] Crystal Fincher: Should we accelerate the elimination of the ability to turn right on red lights to improve pedestrian safety? [00:07:54] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:07:56] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever been a member of a union? [00:07:59] Tammy Morales: No, I haven't. [00:08:01] Crystal Fincher: Will you vote to increase funding and staffing for investigations into labor violations like wage theft and illegal union busting? [00:08:09] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:08:11] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever walked on a picket line? [00:08:13] Tammy Morales: Yes. [00:08:14] Crystal Fincher: Have you ever crossed a picket line? [00:08:16] Tammy Morales: No. [00:08:18] Crystal Fincher: Is your campaign staff unionized? [00:08:20] Tammy Morales: No, they aren't. [00:08:22] Crystal Fincher: If your campaign staff wants to unionize, will you voluntarily recognize their effort? [00:08:27] Tammy Morales: Sure. [00:08:28] Crystal Fincher: Well, that's the end of our lightning round. Hopefully that was easy. [00:08:34] Tammy Morales: I need to do a little more digging on Sound Transit's - delay, delay, delay. [00:08:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Now, lots of people look to work you've done to get a feel for what you prioritize and how qualified you are to lead. Can you describe something you've accomplished or changed in your district, and what impact it has on residents? [00:08:58] Tammy Morales: Oh, great. Yeah, so in District 2, we have fewer - less green space than in other parts of the city. And because we have so many young people down here, there's a lot of interest in more opportunity for young people to recreate. So we've invested a lot through the Metropolitan Parks District and through - mostly through the Metropolitan Parks District - for things like park improvements at Be'er Sheva Park art installation, for a new skate park in Rainier Beach. There's a lot of interest in creating opportunity for young people to be outside. So there's a lot that we've done to improve, to change the community centers to help them become community resilience hubs that are following Green building practices and preparing for extreme weather events. So creating space where people can go during extreme heat or during smoke events. So, you know, those are a few examples of the things that we've done in kind of the parks and climate arena. And then we've also invested millions of dollars in sidewalk improvements in different parts of District 2. This is a part of the city that lacks sidewalks in much of it - much of the South End. And so every year we've tried to put money into the budget process to make sure that at least in some patches of neighborhoods, there's sidewalk repair or sidewalk improvements that are being done. [00:10:46] Crystal Fincher: Well, I do want to talk about the budget because the City is projected to have a revenue shortfall of $224 million beginning in 2025, which is right around the corner. Because we are mandated by the state to pass a balanced budget, our options to address this upcoming deficit are either raise revenue, cut services, or some combination of the two. Which one will be your approach to address this budget shortfall? [00:11:12] Tammy Morales: Well, we absolutely have to raise revenue. So in the last budget cycle, we had a proposed amendment to do a modest increase of the JumpStart payroll expense tax - that was something that I supported, it did not pass - but I do think we're going to have to look at that again. You know, we are a growing city. In the last 20 years, we grew, I think, twice as fast as anybody anticipated. And so that means that we have increased need in the city, whether that's infrastructure or service needs, to make sure that our neighbors are getting the kind of public service that they deserve. And we have to be able to pay for that. So I do think that we will have to have a conversation about increasing the payroll expense tax. We're also looking at a capital gains tax - I think that will be part of the conversation we have this budget cycle. And, you know, the thing is that this is not new information for the City - there was a progressive revenue committee that was formed in 2017, 2018 that started looking at these issues, Mayor Harrell had another task force in the last year to continue that conversation. But the recommendations are the same, which is that as a growing city, given the constraints that we have at the state level, we do have to contemplate how else we will raise revenue to be able to serve our community. And increasing revenue, particularly on large corporations is - in my opinion, and the opinion of many of my colleagues - the way for us to go. [00:12:58] Crystal Fincher: Certainly the JumpStart tax was a popular policy, not just with the City Council, but with the residents of Seattle - so looking at expanding that is definitely an option on the table. Are there still going to have to be cuts? Will those, you know, even if we were to successfully generate more revenue with both of those, does that cover that shortfall or will there also need to be some cuts? [00:13:22] Tammy Morales: You know, we are absolutely looking at the possibility of having to reduce the budget next year. There's - and the challenge is that it is, you know, something like $140 million next year, and it will be even more than that the following biennium. And so how we address that is going to be part of the conversation we start this budget cycle. You know, how we address the staffing of the City is going to be a really hard conversation because what I fear is that, you know, the departments where, you know - there's been a lot of work done to recruit new people into the city, to make sure that we're diversifying our City workforce. And I want to make sure that if we get to a point where we have to have staff layoffs, that those new folks - who are mostly people of color - who have come in are not going to be the first people to go. So it's going to be hard conversations. And, you know, we are just now starting to think about the strategy for dealing with what those conversations are going to have to look like over the next year. [00:14:45] Crystal Fincher: I do want to have a conversation about public safety - it's on the forefront of many people's minds. But also what we see through elections and polling is that a comprehensive view of public safety is where most voters are at - and many leaders in the City are talking about it - so it includes not just police, but also community response, alternative responses that are community-based. [00:15:09] Tammy Morales: Absolutely. [00:15:09] Crystal Fincher: While other jurisdictions around the country and in our own region have rolled out some of these alternative response programs to better support those having behavioral health crises, Seattle is stalled in the implementation of what again is a widely-supported idea. Where do you stand on non-police solutions to public safety issues? And what are your thoughts on civilian-led versus co-response models? [00:15:34] Tammy Morales: Well, that's a great question. And it is something that we have been and will continue to talk about a lot in the city. I feel like I've been really clear for a very long time that the challenges that we have in our communities are very often the result of history of disinvestment in some communities. And so, in my opinion, we need to start at a higher level of this conversation - in order to reduce the violence and reduce some of the community safety issues that we are all very well aware of, we really have to be investing in changing the community conditions that lead to violence in the first place. So that's why it is important to me that we invest in affordable housing, that we invest in food security and access to healthcare and education. And really focus on economic opportunity, particularly for our young people. I think that's an important first step in this conversation. The next step is really looking at the different problems that we have in the city. We do have a need for police to be investigating - particularly if we're talking about violent crime - gun violence, for example. And we need trained experts in responding to mental health crises. We need community programs, as you referred to, who are focused on violence interruption and can really support families after there is an incident. So there are different challenges - safety challenges - that we have, and they each require their own response. I think it's important that we really set up these different responses to be successful, particularly if we're talking about sending somebody out to respond to someone who's having an acute mental health crisis or a behavioral health crisis - police aren't equipped to deal with that. So Councilmember Lewis has been working - trying to set up a CAHOOTS-style alternative response system here for many years now. And I think that is the direction we need to be going. And I think we need to, as a city, really get serious about creating our public health response to some of the public health crises that we have. [00:18:11] Crystal Fincher: Now I wanna talk about people who have been harmed and victimized. And for people who have been victims, they say overwhelmingly they want two things. One, to make sure that what happened to them doesn't happen to them or anyone else ever again. And they want better support. Sometimes - well, many times - people are left hanging, they call the police, report is taken. And even if a person is arrested, they're still left with - you know, if there is a break in, having to replace whatever it is, time lost work, medical bills, just a wide variety of things. How can we better support victims and survivors? [00:18:50] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I was having lunch yesterday with some leaders in the Vietnamese community. And as you know, there's been a string of home invasions, you know, with elderly folks being assaulted. It's important, as we're understanding their impacts, that we are addressing what they want. So, you know, whether that's victim support after the fact, support with mental health care, with medical care, or really looking at the interaction that they have when they call 911. So in the case of these incidents, for example, you know, we're understanding that there was a 15, 20 minute delay in getting a person on the 911 call who could speak their language. And when you're in a traumatizing situation, when you've been victimized, you know, you need support much faster than that. So one of the things that we're looking at is language justice and how we better support our neighbors who don't speak English as a first language in getting access to the City services that they deserve. The other thing I'll say is that we have some accountability that - we really need to be investigating or inquiring about from our police department. You know, in one of these instances, we understand that it was two weeks later before a detective actually reached out to the family. So getting a better understanding of how the investigation - you know, language access issues and getting those resolved, what the process is for investigating, beginning the investigations sooner - and then really understanding why it takes so long to get information is gonna be important for all of these families. The other thing I'll say is that we have organizations in the city that do provide victim support. They provide aftercare. I'm thinking about Choose 180, Community Passageways - these are groups that work with the family afterward to make sure that they get the support they need. And all of these violence interruption programs, diversion programs - you know, real community support - also need to be supported so that they can scale up and provide the kind of assistance that they do to our community members. [00:21:33] Crystal Fincher: I also wanna talk about homelessness. And one thing called out by experts as a barrier to the effectiveness of our homelessness response is that frontline worker wages don't cover the cost of living, especially in Seattle. Do you believe our local nonprofits have a responsibility to pay living wages for Seattle? And how can we make that more likely with how we bid and contract for services? [00:21:59] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's a great question, Crystal. I mean, we all see the crises that are happening on our street. You know, when I see somebody who's homeless, what I see is somebody who's been failed by all of our different systems. And so as a city, we have an obligation to take care of the health and safety of all of our neighbors - you know, I hear a lot of people referring to our City charter saying that, you know, it is our primary duty to ensure the public safety. That's not just for some people - that's not just for housed people - that's for all of us. And so to your question, you know, the City contracts with many social service providers, with many different nonprofit organizations to deliver care and service to our homeless population on behalf of the City. And therefore it is our obligation to make sure that those workers are also paid well and compensated for, you know, really important frontline work that they do. In the last budget cycle, we did have to fight for, you know, cost of living increases for our social service workers. Our Human Services Department contracts with many different organizations and the contracts that they put out really need to include cost of living increases and adjustments so that folks get paid for the work they do. I mean, that's basic. So yeah, there is an obligation for us to make sure that folks who we are contracting with to deliver City services need to be paid fairly. [00:23:38] Crystal Fincher: Now on almost every measure, we're behind on our 2030 climate goals, while we're experiencing horrible impacts ranging from extreme heat and cold, wildfires, smoky and toxic air, floods, just everything. What are your highest priority plans to get us back on track to meet those goals? [00:24:02] Tammy Morales: That's a great question. So there's a couple pieces of legislation that are in the works that need a lot of support from community. The first I'll say is the Building Emissions Performance Standards, which is a bill that has been - I think had been negotiated and was about to come before council. The mayor has recently decided not to transmit that. And I think it's because there's still a lot of work to do. So building emissions and transportation are the two big contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the city. And those are the two places where we really need to start making change because as you said, we are way off track in meeting our 2030 climate goals for reducing emissions. So that bill is intended to, you know, set standards for future construction. And I think part of the challenge that we are hearing from advocates is that it doesn't go far enough and it doesn't achieve the goals soon enough. So we have a 2030 plan. The bill as created would set a 2050 deadline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And so, you know, I am hopeful that the mayor does transmit that legislation. I believe Councilmember Sawant, whose committee it would be in, is planning to introduce her own bill if that doesn't come soon. So that's an important conversation for us to be having. And then there's another piece of legislation called the Living Hotels policy that would set similar environmental standards for hotels that are built in the city. I'm sure you know that tourism is itself part of the climate challenge for all of us as people come to the city - in planes, in cars, to stay in hotels - that really does add to our climate crisis. And so this is a policy that would intend to set some standards for green construction for any future hotels that are built and would really set some different standards for how we are raising expectation about what construction looks like in the city. So that's the building side. And then what I guess I will say about the transportation side is, you know, we really need to get people out of their cars, which means we need to invest and really support a robust public transit system. So working with King County Metro to make sure they have enough workers, make sure that they're increasing their routes, the frequency and reliability of their routes - because we really need to make getting out of your car the easy choice in the city if we want to address the transportation emissions, transportation-related emissions in the city. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that kind of leads into my next question in that - right now, staying out of people's car, even for people who are using transit, is more challenging today because reliability of the system is tanking, really. Whether it's because of staff shortages or other challenges - more buses aren't showing up, routes being suspended, canceled. And so just the reliability of the system is posing a challenge for many people who rely on timely and consistent buses to get to work and their necessities of life. What can the City do to stabilize transit reliability - even keeping in mind that Sound Transit is a regional entity and King County Metro is a county entity - how can the City help to stabilize that? [00:27:59] Tammy Morales: Yeah, well, so part of the work that we do is regularly meeting with Sound Transit and really trying to hold them accountable for delivery of service, for how they are delivering service. And when there are frequent disruptions because of maintenance needs or something is - it seems mostly maintenance-related needs - it's really disruptive to anybody who relies on that line to get into work or to do whatever else they need to do. So that is a conversation that we need to have with the department. And as they are building out the system, my hope is that there is a greater efficiency with getting these repairs done so that it is not so disruptive in the future. The bus transit system is something that is operated by King County Metro. And I think the fact that they recently - finally - signed a contract with their workers is a huge step. So part of the challenge at King County Metro is that workers are not paid well - they were still in bargaining - and I think a lot of that has been addressed. So my hope is that that will lead to folks coming back to work, their ability to increase staff retention, and start to address some of the reliability in that system. And I think the last thing I'll say is that, we have a transportation levy that is coming up. So as we support getting more riders into Metro, it's gonna be important to make sure that they are getting access to service. So we use funding from the Transportation Benefit District to buy more bus service hours. But we can also use funding from the levy to really focus on other ways for folks to get around - building out, as you were referring to earlier, building out the bicycle infrastructure, the pedestrian infrastructure - to make sure that the sort of fragmented networks of bike lanes that we have are better connected. That would make it really easy for folks to get out of their cars and to start using a safer network system to get around. And really supporting the creation of greener infrastructure in the city so that people can get out of their cars and take advantage of those opportunities is gonna be an important part of the transportation levy conversation. [00:30:55] Crystal Fincher: Well, and safety for pedestrians and people riding bikes is a humongous concern - right now, it's really a crisis. With more deaths occurring than ever before, we're far away from meeting our Vision Zero goals as the City of Seattle. What can be done? How will you move to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety? [00:31:18] Tammy Morales: Yeah, well, I think we've talked about this before, Crystal, but the district that I represent experiences almost 60% of the traffic fatalities in the city. So we know that we have huge issues with the major arterials - Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Rainier Avenue, Beacon Avenue - all of these streets have high, they're really designed to be speedways. So the conversation we've been having with the Department of Transportation in the City is not just how do we improve sidewalks, how do we add more crosswalks, what can we do about signal timing - all of those things are important. But even more than that is that we need to redesign the streets themselves so that it is not easy to go 60 miles an hour down what is supposed to be a 25 mile an hour road. That's work that I think is starting to shift - there is more acknowledgement in the Department of Transportation that if we're gonna reach our Vision Zero goals, there is a significant shift in the way we design our roads that will be needed. And so that is work that we are beginning as a city. And then I really think that one of my goals is to see in every neighborhood a pedestrianized street. So during COVID, we did some of these street closures to create Healthy Streets. We don't maybe need them in every block, but it would be great to have a pedestrianized street - you know, here in Beacon Hill, we have Plaza Roberto Maestas, where they close down the street - there's vendors, there's food trucks, it's a community gathering space. I think just having people be able to share an experience like that in every neighborhood can also help elevate the awareness of the fact that we have neighbors who are trying to navigate our community and we all have an obligation to be careful as we're going through our neighborhood. So it is increasing awareness of the fact that there are pedestrians and also - very importantly - rethinking the way we design our streets to make sure that folks can get around safely. [00:33:45] Crystal Fincher: I do wanna talk about the economy and the businesses in your district. We have some of the largest corporations in the world in Seattle, but also very vibrant and diverse small businesses. What are the biggest concerns that you hear from small businesses in your district and what are your priorities to help them? [00:34:05] Tammy Morales: Boy, what I hear about a lot is about commercial rents. So part of the issue about displacement in Seattle is not just residential tenants, but it's also about business tenants. So small businesses are also experiencing displacement, they're also dealing with landlord-tenant issues that they don't necessarily know how to resolve. And so a lot of the work that we're doing - that we plan to do next year - is around, it's sort of rooted in generational wealth building strategies. But it is very much about increasing commercial ownership of commercial property - so allowing business owners to buy something instead of being tenants. It's about access to capital, so that they can purchase commercial property. We have a lot of folks who need language access - again, this keeps coming up. A lot of our small businesses - the owners don't speak English as a first language. And so they need support understanding a lease agreement, understanding how to apply for a loan and what that loan is requiring of them. So that's another piece where, you know, we are working with our Office of Economic Development, with our Office of Immigrant and Refugee affairs to figure out what the right business navigator system is. But there's a lot of work to be done to support our small businesses in being able to stay in the city. And I'm excited about starting that work with OED and really making sure that our neighbors can stay. [00:35:58] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about another issue that's crucial to the economy and that's childcare. Now, childcare, we've recently seen reporting that it is now more expensive than college on an annual basis. We can't talk about inflation or affordability without contending with childcare, which is also just in shorter supply than it was, in addition to being much more expensive. What can you do to help families struggling with the cost of childcare? [00:36:32] Tammy Morales: Yeah, that's an important issue. So there are a few things that we need to consider. The first is just the availability of childcare - so whether it is an in-home family daycare provider or a licensed childcare facility, we have to scale up all of those things. So from a land use perspective, that means making it easier to build childcare facilities and making sure that they are exempt from some of the paperwork requirements that we often impose on construction. We also need to make sure that we are supporting childcare workers themselves. It is an expensive proposition to take your child to childcare - and I know I've got three kids, it was not easy - but it's expensive because we are entrusting these childcare providers with our littlest citizens and they do an important job. And there's also limitations on how many children they can watch at one time. So making sure that we are providing them with good wages and access to benefits is also important. And as you said, it is so expensive to provide childcare. So some of the things that we've talked about in the past - some things I would like to see - include, for example, having sort of a health savings account, but for childcare. So having employers provide access to a savings opportunity to be able to stockpile that. And also just asking our employers to provide better access to childcare subsidies so that they can ensure that their workers can get to work and do the things that they - provide the services that they are providing for folks. Part of the thing, one of the things that the City is doing is also trying to, through the Families and Education levy, increase the Seattle preschool program opportunities. So we just expanded, particularly for bilingual slots, we just added seven additional facilities that can provide bilingual education. So we now have 35 Seattle preschool programs operating in the city. And I think most of the additional ones were here in the South End. So there is work that the City can do in terms of providing actual financial support. And then there is work that we can do to make sure that it is easier to build and easier to increase the capacity of our city to provide space for childcare providers. [00:39:30] Crystal Fincher: Now, as we close this conversation today, there is still a number of residents trying to contend and determine the differences between you and your opponent. When you're talking to someone who's trying to understand the difference and deciding for whom they're gonna vote, what do you tell them? [00:39:49] Tammy Morales: Well, thank you for the question. You know, what I will say is that we are losing half of our current council, and I can tell you that that is potentially destabilizing. So we need trusted, experienced leaders on the council - people who can partner skillfully with other colleagues, with advocates, with the mayor's office to really get things done - and that's the experience I bring. I will say that's why I've been endorsed by other elected or formerly elected leaders like King County Councilmember Zahilay, Larry Gossett, Senator Saldaña, small business owners, advocates - it's because they wanna see a thriving Seattle and they know that I wanna see a thriving Seattle. But I also want a council that can collaborate, that can agree to disagree on policy without getting divisive - you know, I think we all understand that the council needs to be working better together. And so we need folks who can partner and collaborate. You know, I think folks might be surprised to learn that I have a great working relationship, for example, with Councilmember Pedersen, with whom I don't agree on very much at all. But we are very transparent with each other, we're very clear about where we're coming from and why we may not be able to support something. And that allows us to work together really well when we can find something that we agree on, like the legislation I referred to earlier. So, you know, it's important to have folks there who understand how to deliver, whether it's policy or budget resources, for the district. And that's something that I'm really proud of having done in my first term, and that I would be honored to be able to do in a second term. [00:41:52] Crystal Fincher: Well, thank you so much, Seattle City Councilmember and candidate for re-election in Seattle's Council District 2, Tammy Morales. [00:42:01] Tammy Morales: Thanks so much for having me, Crystal - good to see you. [00:42:03] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They discuss a poll showing that Seattle voters want a more progressive City Council, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction overseeing more and more school districts in budget crisis, gubernatorial candidate Mark Mullet getting financially backed by charter school advocates, and Bruce Harrell's ethnic media roundtable not going very well. The conversation continues with the possibility of a $19 minimum wage for unincorporated King County, internal drama within top brass of the Seattle Police Department, and reflection on a consent decree ruling that ends most federal oversight of SPD. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “Ending Youth Incarceration with Dr. Ben Danielson of AHSHAY Center” from Hacks & Wonks   “Poll: Seattle voters want new direction on City Council” by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “State will keep fiscal tabs on three cash-starved Washington school districts” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard   “WA Supreme Court sides with state in suit over school building costs” by Dahlia Bazzaz from The Seattle Times   “Big checks for a pro-Mullet PAC” by Paul Queary from The Washington Observer    “Harrell asks for better relations with ethnic media” by Mahlon Meyer from Northwest Asian Weekly   “King County looks at $19 minimum wage in unincorporated areas” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times   “King County Councilmembers propose $19 minimum wage for Skyway and White Center” by Guy Oron from Real Change   “Seattle police chief's alleged relationship with employee prompts inquiries, roils department” by Ashley Hiruko & Isolde Raftery from KUOW   “Judge ends most federal oversight of SPD, after 11 years and 3 chiefs” by Mike Carter from The Seattle Times    Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I welcomed Dr. Ben Danielson, director of AHSHAY (Allies and Healthier Systems for Health and Abundance in Youth) Center for an important conversation about ending youth incarceration. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review show where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long-time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:19] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me back again, Crystal. It's always a pleasure to be here reviewing the week with you. [00:01:23] Crystal Fincher: Always a pleasure and I wanna start out talking about a poll that came out this week, sponsored by Crosscut - an Elway Poll - showing that voters seem to want a more progressive City Council. What did this poll reveal? [00:01:38] Robert Cruickshank: It's a really interesting poll. Crosscut's headline says - Seattle voters want a new direction on the City Council - but if you dig down with the poll itself, it's clear that there's strong support for a more progressive direction. One of the questions they ask is - Who are you more likely to vote for? A progressive candidate, a centrist candidate, or no opinion. The progressive candidate, 49%. Centrist candidate, 37%. And no opinion, 14%. That actually matches pretty closely some of the results we saw in key City Council primary elections last month. In District 1, for example, District 4, District 6 - you saw pretty similar numbers with a progressive candidate getting close to or around 50% and a more centrist candidate getting somewhere between the upper 30s and low 40s. We have a poll, we have the actual election results from the primary - now that doesn't guarantee anything for the general election. But evidence is starting to pile up that - yes, Seattle voters do want a new direction and it's very likely they want to be a more progressive direction. We've lived for the last three years - certain media pundits and media outlets, like KOMO or The Seattle Times, pushing really hard this narrative that Seattle wants a right-wing turn, Seattle's fed up with a progressive City Council, we're fed up with homelessness, we're fed up with crime - we want to turn to the right, darn it. The poll results and the election results last month just don't support that argument at all. Yes, voters are unhappy and voters are looking at what the progressive candidates are saying and thinking - Yeah, that's how we want to solve this. Yes, we want to solve homelessness by getting people into housing. Yes, we want to solve crime by having all sorts of solutions - including alternatives to policing, alternatives to armed response - to help address this problem. And I think that some of the media outlets and Chamber of Commerce and others, who keep pushing this Seattle-wants-to-turn-right narrative, are just trying to will a story into existence, try to will that reality into existence - but voters are making it clear they're not going along with that. [00:03:28] Crystal Fincher: It really does make some of the rhetoric that we hear over and over again sound like astroturfing, sound like a marketing project - because like you said, over and over again, these election results and these polls just repeatedly tell a different story. For example, we've talked on this show before about stopping with just - Hey, are you happy with the way things are going or are you dissatisfied? And if people say they're dissatisfied, there's been this assumption - that means that they want to get rid of progressive councilmembers and progressive policy. And that has never borne out in the data. One of the questions - On the issue of homelessness, if you had to choose, what approach should have the higher priority for city government resources? One option is: Moving the tents out of parks and public areas and moving their occupants into temporary shelters - which is a nice way to say sweeps - 41%. The other option: Developing permanent housing and mental health services for people experiencing homelessness - 55%. This is not controversial - we've been talking about this on this show for quite some time, lots of people have - these are serious policies backed by evidence and it just makes sense, right? And it makes you question how deeply invested are people in the narrative that Seattle is fed up and they want a really punitive law and order, harsh lock-'em-up approach to things - that just doesn't play out. What we're gonna see in this general election, as we've seen before - it looks like we're anticipating some of the same type of communication, same type of commercial, same type of mailers trying to use those same tired depictions of homelessness as if the people who are homeless are the problem and not the fact that they don't have homes to live in. And Seattle sees that. They see that over and over again. And what we see is there is this attempt, especially around public safety rhetoric, to make it just very flat. Either you want more cops and you support cops and Blue Lives Matter and all of that, or you hate safety and you love crime and you don't want anything. And just making it either you're defund or this Antifa radical, or you're wanting more law and order on the streets. It just doesn't turn out that way. People want serious solutions. We've been doing the same things over and over again. And the public is begging these people to keep listening, but it just doesn't work. Like you said, a plurality here prefer a progressive candidate - 12 points higher than a more moderate candidate, as they put it - conservative wasn't a choice in here. Centrist and progressive - as is the way in Seattle - the way things are usually discussed. Also, when they asked about priorities - How are they evaluating candidates for City Council? It's really interesting. The top answers were: Do they support creating a new department for non-police emergency response, Do they support city funding of substance abuse treatment for people in public housing - both of those at 72%. If you're in the 60s, that's automatic win territory. 72%, it's - how wild is it that this is not on the top of everybody's agenda? Then we move down to - looking at the lower end - the lowest, actually, was: Supporting a three-year moratorium on the Jumpstart tax - that actually made people more likely to vote against someone for voting against a moratorium on that tax, which we've seen the Chamber float and other allied business interests trying to siphon some of that money or reduce the tax that they're paying. And voters are clearly saying no. And people who advocate for that are going to be hurt by taking that position in this general election. So this is just really interesting. One of these questions: Support for Bruce Harrell's agenda. One, I want someone to define what that agenda is - great to ask that in a vague way - what does that mean? And I would love for people to talk - when they talk about the mayor's agenda, Bruce Harrell's agenda - define what that is. I think that's a tougher task than many people might assume at first glance. What else did you see here? [00:07:38] Robert Cruickshank: There are a couple of things that stood out. You talked about taxes. They asked - How should Seattle cover a budget shortfall? 63% want a new business tax, 60% are willing to tax themselves - this just bolsters the point you just made that, contrary to what the Chamber wants, there's no support out there for slashing business taxes. We want to tax the rich more. And so that's another reason why progressive candidates are going to do well. Something you said resonated about the astroturfing. And you see these efforts to try to create outrage about different public safety issues. We saw some of that this week, where Sara Nelson had a stunt press conference in Little Saigon - which is facing issues, and the community of Little Saigon deserves to be heard and deserves to have their needs addressed. That's not what Sara Nelson was there to do. She was there to have a press conference stunt where she could stand there with Tanya Woo and say - Where's Tammy Morales? Why isn't Tammy Morales here? The answer is, as Tammy Morales explained, Tammy wasn't invited because Tammy was also at the Transportation Committee hearing in City Hall doing her job and asked where's Sara Nelson? The answer is Sara Nelson's out grandstanding. She's also the same person who's floating things like moratorium on the JumpStart Tax, floating things like sweeps and crackdowns on visible drug use. Sara Nelson somehow snuck into office in 2021 and thinks somehow that the City is supporting her agenda - whatever that might be, whatever right-wing cause she has at the moment - that's not where the electorate is right now. And I think that's all they have - are stunts - because their actual agenda is unpopular. And I think you're going to start seeing - as a campaign heads into the heat of the general election, the same playbook we've often seen from more centrist candidates. And Jenny Durkan was an expert at this - of just bear-hugging progressive positions, making themselves sound more progressive than they truly are - to try to get elected because they know that's what the electorate in Seattle wants. And then once in office, the mask comes off and they turned out to be the Chamber candidate that they always were. So that's something that the actual progressive candidates are gonna have to watch out for. And voters are going to need to be very careful in discerning between these candidates. Who's just mouthing the rhetoric that they think is going to get them elected? And who's a genuine and proven commitment to these ideals? - Who's really fought hard for taxing the rich? Who's fought hard for affordable housing? Who's fought hard to get services and shelter to people who are unhoused? - rather than people who are just maybe grandstanding on it because they think that's how they're gonna win. [00:10:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think you bring up a really important point. It is that discernment. Some of the justification I've heard for people who are very invested in the "Seattle has taken a right turn" try and retcon the justification - well, voters wanted a conservative business owner and they really want that perspective on the Council. They want someone who's gonna knock heads and get tough. But people so easily forget - that's not at all how Sara Nelson ran. Sara Nelson ran as an environmentalist, as someone who wanted to reform the police department - those were her top-line messages in her communications. She wasn't talking about being a business owner, she was not talking about being tough on crime - she initially started that in the very beginning in the primary and that fell flat. And so they switched up real quick and all of the communication looked like it was coming from a progressive. They used the word "progressive" 72,000 times - Oh no, we're the real progressives here. And it didn't turn out that way. And as you said, once she was elected, the mask came off and we continue to see this over and over again. The moderate playbook, the conservative playbook is to mimic progressive. It's to use that same language. It's to talk about issues in a similar way. Leave yourself a little wiggle room to not commit, to not give a hard and fast answer to something so that when you are elected, you can say - Well, I didn't exactly say that - or - I didn't take a position on this. And we see this over and over again. I hope it doesn't happen again this time, but there's going to be a lot of money spent to try and do this again. And at some point we just have to say - We've seen this before and we've had enough, and we want people who are seriously engaging in how to solve the biggest problems that we face. Because Seattle voters are really frustrated - they are fed up, but fed up with not being listened to. I do congratulate this poll for going beyond just the - Are you happy and unhappy? - and asking the why - What direction do you want to go into? What policy solution do you prefer? And as I suspected, the answers are very enlightening and give you an eye into what voters are really thinking and considering. And I hope all of the candidates - and the electeds who aren't even on the ballot - take heed. I also want to talk about school districts - right now, just as school is starting over again - facing budget crises and just a world of hurt. What's happening here? [00:12:28] Robert Cruickshank: As schools are starting across Washington state this year, there are some schools where teachers have gone out on strike, mostly in Southwest Washington - places like Evergreen Schools in Vancouver, Camas in Clark County - and that's worth watching and we're supporting teachers. In addition, we're starting to see an even more ominous trend of districts needing the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, OSPI, to actually oversee their budgets. They need OSPI monitoring because they're in such deep financial straits, primarily because this Legislature continues to underfund our schools. The Legislature doesn't give schools enough money to cover their basic operations, especially in an era of inflation. And so you have at least three school districts that we know of so far, Marysville, La Conner, Mount Baker - these are all in Northwest Washington - are under OSPI oversight for budgets. It's the most, at any one time, in several years - since at least a great recession. OSPI is quoted as saying this is unprecedented. And they don't think it's gonna stop there. It's just the tip of the iceberg - as more and more districts face problems, as federal stimulus money goes away, as levy equalization dollars start to drop, as regionalization money - which is designed to help districts afford to pay teachers what it actually costs to live in their community - that starts to go away from the state. The state continues to underfund special education. And just this morning before we went on air, we saw the State Supreme Court ruled against the Wahkiakum School District in Southwest Washington, their case where they were trying to get the state to be held responsible for the cost of school construction. The Supreme Court said - No, the state and local governments, local districts are gonna have to share that - even though it takes 60% of voters to approve a school bond for construction, those often fail. And small communities like Wahkiakum, small logging community on the Columbia River, don't have the property tax base to keep their schools in good repair. So what we're seeing is the Legislature, and now the Supreme Court, continue to hand blow after blow to local school districts. And this is alarming, not just because it leads to cuts and even school closures - something they're considering in school districts like Seattle - that's bad enough. But when you start to see state oversight in management of districts, that's when I think red flags should really go up. There's things like appointing emergency fiscal managers - in the state of Michigan and other states where Republicans took over - that led to huge cuts to schools, where these emergency fiscal managers would come in and turn schools over to charter school operators, they tear up union contracts, they would make all sorts of cuts to libraries and music and other important services. Now, we're not seeing that in Washington state yet, but that architecture is now in place. And if the wrong person gets elected governor or the wrong party takes over the Legislature, all of a sudden these school districts could be losing local control over their basic dollars and spending to the state. So this is a unfolding crisis that the State Legislature and the Democratic majority there continue to ignore, continue to not take seriously - even though it remains in the Constitution, literally their paramount duty, to provide ample provision for funding, not just enough. The open dictionary says more than enough. No one can look at a public school district anywhere in Washington state and say schools are getting ample funding. They're just not. And this crisis is only going to grow worse. We're only going to see further cuts to schools, further closures, larger class sizes, teachers leaving - unless the State Legislature steps in. [00:16:00] Crystal Fincher: We do have to contend with the fact that this is happening with the Democratic majority, right? Even more frustrating where - this is another issue voters support in such huge numbers - adequately, amply funding education and raising the revenue because revenue is needed to amply fund education. It's really frustrating. And so I guess my question for you, because you do pay such close attention - I do recommend people follow Robert for a variety of things, but his insight on education policy is really valuable - how do we fix this? Is it all on the Legislature? Where is the fix here? [00:16:39] Robert Cruickshank: The fix is at the Legislature. Local school districts can only do so much. A 60% threshold has not been changed by the Legislature - they have the ability to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change that, that never happens. But even more, the Legislature has also capped a local operating levy. Seattle, which has a very pro-tax population, would happily tax ourselves a lot of money to have amazing public schools. We can't do that because we're prevented by the State Legislature. And the obvious reason, of course, is Seattle has such valuable property because we have Amazon, Vulcan, other large corporate property owners here who will ensure that the Legislature doesn't do that. So we have a State Legislature and a Democratic majority that is just unwilling to take on the big corporations and the wealthy to fund our public schools. They point to the capital gains tax. And yes, that was an important victory in 2021. And it's raising almost double what was expected. But of course, there's a caveat there. They cap the amount of money that goes to the Education Legacy Trust Fund - anything above that is supposed to go to school construction, which is great - we just talked about the Supreme Court decision and how local governments and local districts in rural Washington definitely need help funding schools. That's great. But what happens when you don't have the ability to pay the teachers to go into those buildings? When you don't have the ability to provide the books, materials, the music classes, the arts classes, the small class sizes that we voted for in 2014? The Legislature proposed a wealth tax last year - 20 out of 29 Senate Democrats, 43 out of 58 House Democrats supported it as co-sponsors. Surely there were many more who weren't sponsors who were on board. The bill never even made it out of committee in either chamber. At some point, we have to look at the State Legislature and the Democrats, even the progressives - even the Democrats we like and support strongly - haven't stuck their necks out for education, haven't stepped up to say we're gonna fix this. They aren't recognizing the crisis that's there and that's what we have to do. We have to point the finger at the Legislature and go to them at their town halls, to their offices, committee meetings in Olympia, testify virtually if that's possible again in January and make it crystal clear - this is a crisis, it is dire, and you have to fix it. And the only possible source of the fix is the Legislature. [00:19:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Thank you for your insight on that, and we do have to get involved. We have to make sure they hear our voices, demanding that this happens. And while they're at it - to provide free school lunches for all school kids. Also several other states - I think we're at 11 so far - are doing the same, putting us to shame. All states should have this and so we have a lot of work to do. Also wanna talk about a candidate for governor - Mark Mullet, current sitting senator out of the 5th legislative district, being backed by charter school money. What's happening here? [00:19:42] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, Mark Mullet, a very right-wing Democrat - he probably would have been a Republican if he didn't realize that being a Democrat would get him elected more easily out there in Issaquah. He's been hostile to teachers' unions for a long time, notoriously hostile to other unions - very nearly lost his reelection in 2020 to Ingrid Anderson, a progressive nurse. Mullet only prevailed by 58 votes, but continues to act as a very right-wing Democrat. And he's always been in love with charter schools - he's been a major obstacle to getting the Legislature to fully fund our public schools. He sits on the Senate Ways and Means Committee. He works with centrist Democrats, corporate Democrats, and Republicans to try to block bills that would fund our schools. And in return, he's now gotten at least $25,000 from a charter school PAC to help fund a super PAC in support of Mark Mullet's run for governor. Polls continue to show so far that Mullet is trailing pretty badly here in the governor's race - Ferguson still has the lead, but it's early. We're well over a year away from the general election for governor. But Mullet clearly is staking his claim as the right-wing Democratic candidate, and the candidate of now folks who wanna privatize our public schools and spread charters everywhere. And as we've seen in other states, charter schools are really problematic. They don't really meet student needs on the whole. Their outcomes aren't better for students. And they're often fly-by-night operations - they'll close in the middle of a school year and then leave students just high and dry. But it's really revealing that Mullet is taking, or at least getting supported by, so much money - that's not a direct donation to his campaign, but it's clear that they are running a super PAC explicitly in support of Mark Mullet. It's a real sign - that's where his bread is buttered - by big corporations and school privatizer money. So something that I think voters are gonna wanna pay pretty close attention to as the campaign for governor starts to heat up next year. [00:21:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I do have to tell you, it is very concerning how unstable charter schools seem to be. How many - we see openings and then we see closings. And that just hardly ever happens with public schools. When it does, it's under financial duress and usually over the objections of all of the parents. But this has been something that we've seen with frequency with charter schools here in Washington. But yeah, definitely worth paying attention to that - and what that agenda is by the folks who have that super PAC and what other interests they're in-line with are really troubling. So we'll continue to pay attention to that. I also wanna talk about a story that came out - I actually think it was late last week, this is a short holiday week and so kind of trickled out - but it was a story about Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell's roundtable with some of our local ethnic media outlets. We have wonderful, rich ethnic media outlets here in Washington State - all throughout the state, definitely here in King County. And the mayor's office seemed troubled by the lack of positive stories coming out, and so invited a number of these journalists to - it looks like City Hall - to have a little roundtable conversation. How did that turn out? [00:22:56] Robert Cruickshank: Well, it's interesting. Many mayors have met with our local ethnic media - it's a good thing for them to do in and of itself - Mike McGinn did a great tour of them back when I worked with him in 2011. So it makes sense for Harrell to try to reach out, but it doesn't seem to have gone very well. And according to at least one of the reports that was there, the mayor wasn't happy about the meeting being recorded - said he could speak less freely. But I think when you're dealing with journalists, any public official should know that's how journalists like to operate - they wanna record everything. And it just seemed like the mayor wanted to make it very personal and wanted to get good coverage out of these outlets. And that's just not how you actually should be approaching these media outlets to begin with. These folks want respect, they wanna be treated as serious journalists - which they are. And I think that for a mayor to come in the way it appears Mayor Harrell did, I don't think it's gonna serve his needs and certainly not the needs of those ethnic media outlets. [00:23:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this was covered in Northwest Asian Weekly and it was really a jaw-dropping read because it does seem to start off - Bruce Harrell is a charismatic guy and there's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing wrong with wanting to open lines of communication, to air out any challenges - I think that's a positive thing. Where I think this took a bad turn was this assumption that they should put aside their professionalism, put aside the obligation they have to report - and to seek information and accountability - and just play along, go along with what he says. And the one thing that caught my eye, which maybe it didn't - well, a few things caught my eye - but one thing that I found troubling in here, which may not be an overt red flag and who knows what he actually meant by that, but there was an allusion to - Hey, there's Comcast money - anyone who works in the City of Seattle is aware of how much Comcast money there actually is in the City. But he said - Hey, the city might be able to facilitate ethnic media getting involved in Comcast channel 21, while also him saying that they were dying - which those ethnic media outlets directly challenged and he seemed to not accept or be willing to do. But dangling - Hey, there's more access, there's more information here for you if you play along. And that's the unspoken part of this. And even if that wasn't intended - I don't know what he intended - but as a public official, you have to be aware of when you're holding that much power, when you have that much control of resources and influence over people who are wielding those resources, and you have access to a bigger platform, and you're saying - Hey, I can help you out with this - there's the implication, if you aren't explicit and careful, saying - If you scratch my back too, if you ease up on the criticism, if you stop asking troubling questions. It seems like they heard that in this meeting and seemed to react - one, just mischaracterizing where they're at and they're not sitting here asking for handouts, they're not asking for anything unearned - they are professionals who put out great products, who many of us consume regularly and they're a part of our media ecosystem that too many people just leave out. And they're saying - No, we're not dying, we're here and we're thriving and we just want answers to our questions. We just want invitations to invites that other reporters are getting invites to. And there seem to be questions with that, as well as some offense taken to them asking just regular general questions. One reporter, a Black reporter from a Black media outlet, brought up - Hey, we're having a really hard time getting straight answers from your police department. Bruce Harrell is literally the executive to talk to for that - they answer to Bruce Harrell, he is in charge of the police department. And his response - You're the only one who's had that problem. I think everyone listening knows that they're not the only ones who have that problem. We've seen that across the ecosystem in various places, particularly to people who don't cover City Hall sympathetically, and that's just really troubling. You're there and you're not listening to the reporters who are reflecting their communities and trying to get information that is really important to the communities they serve. And the dismissiveness was just really troubling. [00:27:27] Robert Cruickshank: It really is. And I think it goes to the concerns that those media outlets have had for a long time. They wanna be taken seriously and deserve to be because they're serious journalists - doing serious journalism that is read and respected, not just in those communities they serve, but around the City. And yet they struggle to get invites to press conferences, they struggle to get responses from City departments, they struggle to get included in stories, they struggle to get their basic inquiries addressed. And they understand that a lot of the City's media relations folks, whether it's the mayor's office or City departments, don't always take them seriously. So to have the opportunity to sit down directly with the mayor is hugely important for these outlets - not only to show that they matter, but to get answers and to get things fixed that need to be fixed in the way the City is interacting with those media outlets. And yet for it to go this way, it just, in their minds, likely justifies a lot of concerns they had all along. It's not going to assuage them at all. And from the perspective of supporting local media outlets, it seems like this should have been handled better. Even from Bruce Harrell's own perspective, it could have been handled better. 'Cause now he's got a story that makes him look bad and raises questions about the way his office is responding to some of the most important media outlets in the City. I think it's - to insinuate that they might be dying goes right to the heart of the problem. These media outlets have been thriving for decades. And it's not easy for any media outlet to survive these days, large or small, no matter what community they serve. And the last thing they want is to be dismissed again - in this case, dismissed as potentially just on the brink of death. I mean, who knows how many of the TV stations are on the brink of death, right? Seattle Times - who knows how long the Blethen family is going to want to keep running it until the family decides to sell it out to Alden Global Capital, which will just gut everything for parts. It's important to treat these media outlets and their reporters with respect, no matter who it is in elected office or whatever City department you're in. And so I hope that the mayor's office puts that right. [00:29:29] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. Also want to talk this week about a potential $19 minimum wage coming to unincorporated King County. What's being proposed? [00:29:42] Robert Cruickshank: King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay is proposing a $19 an hour minimum wage for unincorporated King County - so that's outside of a incorporated city. So cities like Seattle, SeaTac have obviously raised minimum wage. Tukwila has raised it, Renton - which is on the ballot this year - likely to pass. But there are about a quarter million people in King County who are not in a city. They live in a community, sometimes, or maybe they don't live in a formal community, maybe they're out in more rural parts of the county - but they're part of King County. And what Girmay is recognizing is there's an opportunity to help them. So what he wants to do is raise the minimum wage for those parts of King County, for those 250,000 people - which is a substantial number of people - to make sure that they can also benefit from a higher minimum wage and raise it to $19. We all know how inflation is hitting people, especially the rise in cost of housing - and Girmay's done a great job trying to address housing as well in his role on the King County Council. But this is a great step forward for the King County Council to not just sit by and say the minimum wage is a city issue or it's a state issue. No, they have a quarter million people they can help right now. And to step forward and propose this, I think, is the right thing to do. I hope that all candidates for King County Council embrace it. I hope that the current councilmembers embrace it and pass it as quickly as they can, because I think this is an important step for folks living in those communities. [00:30:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And they shouldn't be left out of the progress that many of the people who've been able to live in cities have been benefiting from. And sometimes we think unincorporated King County and people just think - Oh, it's just a few people living out in the boonies. You talked about how many people there are, and these are places like Vashon Island, Skyway, White Center - where there are a lot of people - these are our neighbors. They just happen to be in an area that wasn't formally incorporated. And so I see this as definite progress. We have a ways to go to get wages to a place where they're really funding people's lives today. Rents are so high. The cost of living has increased so much. Rents, childcare, these massive costs that are so huge and that are preventing people from being able to fully participate in society, to be upwardly mobile, to live the life that they choose. We know we can do better. We know we owe this to the residents. And I think this starts for businesses that employ more than 500 people. This is [not] burdening small businesses. It just seems like this is really the logical thing to do. Medium-sized businesses with 16 to 499 employees would be given a four-year transition period, but it's really important to get this on the way. This is a very popular policy also, fortunately. And so I am optimistic that this will pass and hope it has the unanimous support of the council. [00:32:25] Robert Cruickshank: I hope so too. It should be unanimous. I'd like to see Dow Constantine come in strongly for it as well and help use his power and influence to get it done. It should be an issue in the council races - between Teresa Mosqueda and Sofia Aragon, for example. I think it's a really important contrast that can be drawn. [00:32:40] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I wanna close out talking about a couple of stories revolving around the Seattle Police Department. The first is a story that broke - I think it was KUOW reported on it - but there have been rumors dogging Seattle Police Chief Diaz about an alleged affair or rumored affair. However, lots of people are really wondering whether to question this because it also may be rumors intended - falsely made up - intended to de-credit the chief and speed his way out. And people are trying to weigh which one of these this is. What happened here and what do you see going on? [00:33:26] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, this is a sadly typical situation that we've seen in SPD over the years - where different elements of the command staff start sniping at each other and trying to take each other down, rather than focus on their jobs. It's unclear and we don't know - and I don't really care - what Chief Diaz is doing his personal time. Obviously, if it's an employee, then you gotta make sure all rules and ethics are respected - but if people are also throwing around insinuations, that hurts the woman in question. You don't wanna make a woman who's working in SPD subject to these rumors - not just that makes Chief Diaz look bad, the department look bad - you're sullying someone's reputation here. It shouldn't be sullied. But the bigger question here is - what does it say about SPD and what does it say about how it's being run? We're in the middle of a wave of burglaries that people are complaining about, and complaining about slow SPD response time, people complaining about safety on our roads. And I will say just yesterday near my home in Northgate, I saw a driver go right through a red arrow, turning into an intersection - it wasn't like it turned red right as they were entering, it had been red for some time when they entered - in front of a police car. And the officer did nothing - just let it happen and no enforcement at all. People complain about the number of homicides that are happening. It's a real crisis out there, and concerns about is SPD really doing all it can do to investigate these? Is it doing all it can do to close burglary cases? And yet what do we see SPD doing? Their command staff are sniping at each other and spreading gossip and rumor, whether there's any truth to it or not. And I think it's just a sign of how dysfunctional SPD has become. I think it's also a sign that we need strong leadership to reform this department. We'll talk about, I know, about the consent decree in a moment, but it's clear that there are ongoing management problems. And it raises the question - do we need a external chief to come in, who isn't part of all these rivalries and gossip and jealousies, to come in and put a stop to a lot of this? But it's just a sign - that these rumors are reaching the media - that SPD's commanders are not focused on the job they say they're focused on. They're happy to blame the City Council, which has no operational control over SPD, which hasn't said a word about defunding the police since they - for a hot minute in the summer of 2020, very gingerly cut a piece of SPD's budget, ever since then they've been showering as much money as they can on the police department - trying to ply them with recruitment bonuses and making it very clear - Oh no, we're not gonna defund you anymore. Sorry, forget about that. The City Council is not the problem here. There's a real problem with how SPD is managed. There's a problem with the command staff. And Council doesn't run that department - as you said earlier, the mayor does. And so we need to see how Bruce Harrell's going to respond to this too, because it's becoming increasingly clear that SPD isn't getting its job done. [00:36:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and it's not getting its job done in any way - people are suffering - and the most cynical thing is there've, no surprise, been SPOG communications in various places literally touting - Detectives haven't been able to respond to this commercial burglary for two weeks and it's 'cause we were defunded. As you said, defunding did not happen. In fact, their funding has increased. They keep giving money to these people despite staffing shortages in other departments too. If that would help, that would be one thing. But even police officers are on record saying - Yeah, these hiring bonuses are not gonna get more people in the door, keep people. Retention bonuses aren't gonna keep people. That's actually not the problem. The problem is not financial anymore. But it's really troubling just that everyone's eye seems to be off of the ball. And everyone's eye seems to be in a different place than where Seattle residents can see they need to be. As we talked about earlier with those poll results, Seattle residents want a more comprehensive response. They want responsiveness from the police department and they want to shift out responsibilities, assets to manage things in a way that does ensure they can get the service level they expect from the police department - and get other community violence interventions, diversion programs, other community safety initiatives up and running. And they just seem to be focused on literally everything but that. And at a time where everyone is facing this challenge of trying to manage, whether it's crime or behavioral health crises or everything that we're dealing with, they need to do better. We need Bruce Harrell to get this under control - what dysfunction and what disarray - he needs to get a hold of this. [00:38:01] Robert Cruickshank: He really does. Again, the mayor runs the police department. The mayor has operational control. It's not the City Council. And I think we need to see that leadership from the top to really fix what's gone wrong at SPD. [00:38:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now I wanna talk about big news that broke last night - that a judge just ended federal oversight of SPD after 11 years. Now you were in the administration that saw the consent decree established. What is the legacy of this consent decree, and where do we go now that federal oversight is largely ending? [00:38:34] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, the consent decree has its pros and cons. The upside is, and always was - and this is why many in the community demanded it and went to the DOJ in the first place in 2010 and 2011 - they felt they needed a federal judge, a federal monitor and the US Department of Justice to come in and force SPD to improve its use of force policies, to address concerns about biased policing, and ultimately also added in were - later in the process - concerns about how it manages demonstrations. So it's a pro - is that you get an outside body that is widely trusted, certainly when Obama ran the DOJ and now that Biden does, to come in and force the changes that SPD wasn't willing to make and the City wasn't able to make. The downside though is it's a federal legal process that is fairly limited in what it can cover. You're at the mercy of the federal judge, the federal monitor - who wound up stepping in the summer of 2020 to undermine some of the efforts that were taken to reform the department, including cutting SPD's funding. So its coming to an end doesn't mean that SPD has been fixed. What it means is that in the eyes of this judge, the specific conditions laid out in the 2013 consent decree, in his mind, have been achieved. And what does that mean for people here in Seattle? It doesn't necessarily mean that SPD is a clean bill of health and is now operating in a much better place than it had been before. And in fact, the federal judge did retain jurisdiction over use of force and of how discipline is managed. He cares a lot about the contract - having raised significant concerns about the previous SPOG contract that was done in 2018. But it goes back to something that I remember Mike McGinn saying a lot in 2012, 2013 during this whole negotiation process around the consent decree - pointing out correctly that lasting reform isn't gonna come from the federal government, it's gonna come from the community, and it's going to depend on the ability of City Hall to make change in SPD and make it stick. And he took a lot of heat for saying that. People thought he was trying to keep the DOJ out - he wasn't. He welcomed the DOJ, he was always honest about that, direct about that. But I think he was right. He was right then and right now that with the federal government largely stepping back - not completely, but largely stepping back - bringing an end to much of the consent decree, it's now up to us. It's up to us as a city, as a community, and especially our elected officials in City Hall to actually make sure that what we want done at SPD, what we want done with public safety more broadly happens. As we talked earlier in this podcast, there's a lot of support out there in the public for non-armed response to crime. People want it, it polls off the charts. We still haven't seen it. The mayor's office keeps promising and promising, keeps getting delayed and delayed. This mayor has been in office a year and a half now, and it's time to see it come to fruition - that's going to be another important piece of how we handle policing and public safety in the City - is to have armed officers doing less of it or focusing on the things they need to focus on and not the things where they don't need to be focused on. But we'll see what happens there because as we've seen all along, this is really up to the community to make these reforms stick. The DOJ had its role and we can ask how effective was it really - again, the ending of the consent decree doesn't mean SPD's fixed, it just means certain boxes got checked. But I think we have to see what happens out of City Council elections this year and what the mayor's going to do to address ongoing problems with the police. [00:41:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. All with the backdrop of negotiations happening now for the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract - and that will set the tone for so much moving forward. It's going to be interesting to see how this proceeds. [00:42:16] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, it really will. And I think that SPOG contract is going to be crucial - and who gets elected to the City Council this fall will play a really big role in how that negotiation winds up. [00:42:26] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely will. And with that, we'll conclude this week-in-review. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, September 8th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today was Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long-time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter - and multiple platforms, I think - @cruickshank. We're all around. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter. You can find me on most platforms as @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Hunter Biden indicted on felony arms possession. UW researchers to release study about fentanyl smoke on transit in the northwest. KNOW IT ALL: 1) Cop imitates dog to intimidate suspect. 2) More audio from councilwoman Sara Nelson calling out Tammy Morales over problems in her district. 3) Kamala Harris says she is ready to be President if Biden is unable to serve. // Change in Seattle begins with electing new city leaders. // Our aged politicians on the national level. China wants to ban clothes that 'hurt nation's feelings'. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

U.S. will check on chips used in a 'Made in China' smartphone. Biden walked away awkwardly after awarding a Medal of Honor, yesterday. Fox's Peter Doocy asked Karine Jean-Pierre why the White House staff 'babies' the President. // Elon Musk preparing for another rocket launch. Seattle councilwoman Sara Nelson called out colleague Tammy Morales about crime in her district. Asian residents of Seattle being victimized. // Desantis refutes climate narratives in light of the hurricane in Florida. Canadian truckers on trial. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For this Friday show, we present Part 2 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable which was live-streamed on August 8, 2023 with special guests - journalists Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos. In Part 2, the panel breaks down primary election results for Seattle City Council races in Districts 6 and 7 - which both feature incumbents employing different strategies to hold their seats - and explore whether any overarching narratives are on display in the Seattle results. The discussion then moves on to contrasting races in King County Council Districts 4 and 8, before wrapping up with what each panelist will be paying most attention to as we head towards the November general election. Find Part 1 on our website and in your podcast feed. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's special guests, Daniel Beekman at @DBeekman, Guy Oron at @GuyOron, and Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.    Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable Livestream | August 8th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 2 of our 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable, with guests Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron and Melissa Santos, that was originally aired live on Tuesday, August 8th. Part 1 was our last episode – you can find it in your podcast feed or on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. You can also go to the site for full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show. Thanks for tuning in! [00:00:42] Crystal Fincher: So also want to talk about the next district here - a race with an incumbent here - Dan Strauss and Pete Hanning. One where there was quite a bit of money in this race, quite a bit of spending. Dan Strauss - this was really interesting because as we touched on before, we saw with Tammy Morales really leaning into her record and a seeming justification and approval of that and almost a mandate from voters to continue on in the same direction based on how she represented herself - different strategy here and someone looking like they're running away from their record a bit or saying - Hey, I'm course correcting here. So do people know what they're getting? Do people know what they're expecting? But still a strong result for an incumbent here, with Dan Strauss currently at 51.77% of the vote in District 6. And then Pete Hanning, who was the Seattle Times-endorsed candidate with 29.32% of the vote, despite almost over $96,000 raised. How did you see this race, Melissa? [00:01:58] Melissa Santos: I think Dan has probably looked at this a little more closely, but I did find it interesting that Dan Strauss - getting back to Dan Beekman's point earlier - was Dan Strauss was just saying "Defund the Police" was a mistake - he just said it straight up. That's just - he was emphasizing that. And I - that has to be a reflection of his district. And I - gosh, I should be more familiar with the new district lines, but we are talking about a different district than District 3, which is central Seattle, here. We're talking about - I actually mix up the two guys on the council not infrequently, it's super embarrassing - but anyway, so Dan Strauss's district though is very different than central Seattle. It's not Andrew Lewis's district, which is different, but we're talking an area that does have more conservative pockets - conservative as it gets in Seattle in a way. So "Defund the Police" he's saying was a mistake, but then other people - that message hasn't resonated in some of the other races. So we are talking about a district that is very unique, I think, from some of the central Seattle districts in that apparently Dan's doing really well, just completely acting like "Defund the Police" was a discussion that never should have happened. So will be interesting seeing what happens there. [00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Dan? [00:03:19] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I don't know. I think Dan Strauss is definitely benefiting from being an incumbent to the extent that people - they may not feel like they love the guy, although some voters, I'm sure, do - but they know who he is, they know his name, he's been in office. He gives off - or tries to give off - a sort of I'm-just-Dan-from-Ballard vibe, your local guy who you know, a nice guy. Maybe that probably puts off some people, but I think he benefits from that in people just looking at the ballot and they may know The Red Door, but they may not know Pete Hanning's name. The one thing that I thought - I was looking at - that was most interested in was this is the district that changed most dramatically in redistricting. So it used to be the west part of north of the cut - Ballard, going up all the way up to Blue Ridge, etc, Broadview, and then over towards Green Lake. But now it hops the cut and basically is like Ballard, Fremont, and Magnolia - and looking at sort of the maps, all that's been released mapwise in terms of precinct level results is Election Night, so it's not the full picture, but you get a sense for the pattern. And overall the map, I don't think looks any different from any other Seattle election map, but this is a new configuration for that district and so interesting to see. Dan Strauss did very well in central Ballard, the more apartment-heavy part of Ballard and Fremont. And that Pete Hanning's stronghold, to the extent he had one in the primary, was in Magnolia, which isn't necessarily surprising. But it's just - it's a new map, so it's fun to see a new map. [00:05:32] Crystal Fincher: It is fun to see a new map. How did you see this, Guy? [00:05:37] Guy Oron: Yeah, Dan Strauss had a very impressive personal mandate - I think he got the most votes by far out of any of the Seattle City Council races - and this was the only district that reached like 40% turnout. So I wonder if that's in part because of just the demographics - being wealthier, whiter, more middle class. But I do wonder how much of that mandate is just because he's the default, milquetoast, moderate white guy. Or if it's just like people are passionate about him. Or I think a lot of people read The Stranger and voted for him - that would be my guess. And also he's incumbent and he's somehow managed to spin himself as not being that inoffensive. And also, I'm curious about Pete Hanning - if his candidate quality was as high as some of the other candidates in terms of getting his name recognition out there and actually making a mark - and so that would be his challenge going into the general election. But I would be very, very shocked if Strauss doesn't win at this point. [00:06:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it would be unprecedented for someone in Strauss's position, or really someone in Morales's position, not to be successful in the general. The power of incumbency is real. It is really, really hard to take out an incumbent, which is why sometimes you hear with a number of challengers, excitement - that it takes the electorate being in a place where they're ready to make a change and signaling they're going to make a change - and then takes a candidate who can take advantage of that. It looks like some were banking on the electorate being in more of a mood for a change than they actually are, which I think changes perhaps some of the strategy that some of the challengers had going in. But I think this is a case where there's an incumbent and people may have their feelings - I think he does try to be generally inoffensive and it's hard for a lot of the district to really, to very strongly passionately dislike him. But even those who were open to a change, it's one thing to say - Okay, I'm willing to hear other points of view - but it does take a candidate who can really articulate a clear vision and connect with voters to give them something that they can say - Okay, I can say yes to this, there is another vision here that I'm aligned with. And I don't know that voters heard another vision that they're necessarily aligned with unless they were really unhappy in the first place. It just looks like the amount of people who were really unhappy with their own councilmember just is not that big of a number, not one that's automatically creating a shift on the council. And so I think the job of a number of these challengers is a little bit harder than they bargained for. And I think here in another race - a closer race with an incumbent - in District 7, Andrew Lewis finished with, or currently has as of today the 8th, 43.47% of the vote to Bob Kettle's 31.5%. How do you see this race shaping up, Guy? [00:09:12] Guy Oron: Yeah. I thought - this was really a little surprising to me that Lewis did so poorly here. He still got the plurality, but he didn't have any challenges from the left, so it was a lot of pretty right-wing candidates or center who were really attacking him for his drug ordinance vote, policing. And I think this is probably the place we can expect a Chamber of Commerce or their successor organizations to pour in a ton of money to unseat him, to unseat Lewis. We also saw very low turnout in part because I think places like South Lake Union have a lot of expats and a lot of folks who are from around the country who don't pay attention to local politics. And so it might be important to have a ground game and activate those voters, and for Lewis just to find new voters instead of trying to look weak and flip-flop on issues. But that's just my two cents. [00:10:23] Daniel Beekman: Go ahead, Daniel. Yeah. I was just thinking that Guy was making some good points there and in theory, turnout should grow from the primary to the general election just as a rule. So yeah, Andrew Lewis is going to need to go after more voters. And in his 2019 race, he had the advantage of not just, I think, ad spending outside, but he had - I remember because I went out with them - hotel workers, union hotel workers knocking doors, turning out the vote for him on their own through independent work from his campaign, independent from his campaign in that election. And certainly he would hope to get that kind of support to turn out those additional voters in the general or else maybe he's in trouble. But yeah, I always like to look at the map. It was interesting looking at this one too, where you just had some real clear like top of Queen Anne and Downtown to some extent anti-Andrew Lewis voting or pro his challengers. And then the rest of the district, I think he did fairly well. But if turnout is a lot higher on upper Queen Anne than lower Queen Anne - doesn't matter what the map looks like in terms of space on it. [00:12:06] Crystal Fincher: Is that how you size it up, Melissa? [00:12:08] Melissa Santos: Yeah, I just think Andrew Lewis has a lot of work to do going forward to the general because theoretically you expect - I think it's reasonable to expect voters who voted for, for instance, Olga Sagan, the restaurant owner who is very anti-the work of the city council and anti-Andrew Lewis's record - they're more likely those voters are likely to vote for Bob Kettle, I would think in this particular case, than suddenly say maybe he's okay now. So and that would get - that alone - she only got 12% or something like that. But that's a sizable chunk to add to Bob Kettle's total there. And I do notice that Andrew Lewis seems a little worried. I do think he's trying to make sure his name's out there for stuff he's doing on the council right now - which all of them are doing who are incumbents - but I feel like Lewis especially is aware that he has some ground to make up. [00:13:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that Lewis has some reassuring to do of a lot of his base. I think that - right or wrong - but I think that there's cause for it, that there are people wondering if he really is a champion on their issues or can be pressured to not vote a certain way. I think more than other - certainly for the incumbents that are there - I think he's viewed as more of a swing vote than some others, which really says you may not know exactly what you're getting from him if you're in his base. And I think that's a challenge. I think that candidates - certainly incumbents are in a stronger position if they do have a well-defined persona, defined stances - that at least your base knows what they're going to get. And then you try and expand that a little bit. I think he has more of a challenge than the other incumbents there. With that said, I think that he is probably in a stronger position to win the general election. Not that this won't be competitive certainly, but I think if you're looking between the two of them and you're a betting person, he's more likely to be able to consolidate the vote and pick up people who vote in the general who don't necessarily vote in the primary than a more moderate candidate. But I think this is a race that has a lot of attention and a lot of interest, and one where we're likely to see outside spending playing a significant role in this race. [00:14:44] Melissa Santos: Yeah, and you are right that he didn't just annoy centrist people who wanted to see more prosecution of drug arrests. He actually has annoyed the progressives at various times by flip-flopping - I'm thinking about the capping rent fees as one vote he had where at first he was supporting a higher cap fee on, a higher maximum fee on late rent, than maybe the progressives wanted. And then went back to supporting a lower one - it was like $10 versus $50 or something like that. I think that some of the progressives were - Hey, where is this guy at on this - with that when they wanted to see that cap on late rent fees. I feel like it's hard to me for me to say all those words together correctly, but we wanted to see a very tight cap on how much landlords could charge for late rent. And Lewis was a little more willing, at one point, to consider letting landlords charge a little more for that. And that was something that disappointed progressives too. [00:15:43] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and it's - are you threading - he may be trying to thread the needle on some of these issues, but if he can't thread it correctly, does it look like you're flip-flopping or being - are you wavering rather than threading? [00:15:59] Guy Oron: It does seem like Lewis has been a little less successful with that strategy than Strauss. And maybe that's also because of their districts, but I think he should be worried a little bit about alienating those people who would maybe support him otherwise, for Stranger readers or that labor, for example, are labor unions actually going to come out and bat for him at this point like they did in 2019. So that will be something he has to work on in the next couple months. [00:16:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is. And so we've covered all of these Seattle City Council district races. Looking at them - is there a narrative to all of these races? Before this, Mayor Bruce Harrell had talked about recruiting against some of the incumbents here, having some candidates here. Do you see this as an acceptance, or repudiation, jury still out on what this says about where people stand in alignment with the mayor based on these results? Guy? [00:17:18] Guy Oron: I think, firstly, all the races are very competitive. So that was a little different than expectations. I think progressives do have a shot of actually winning back control a little bit, or retaining control, depending on how you define that. But I think the biggest narrative for me is just how low turnout we had. We had only 15% of 18 to 24 year olds vote across King County, so that shows that the political process isn't engaging a big amount of people - which is probably the most concerning fact out of this primary. [00:18:01] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Daniel? [00:18:08] Daniel Beekman: I don't know in terms of big takeaways overall, I guess we wait and see for the general. Some of the - some sort of fundamentals in Seattle politics aren't going to change that much generally from year to year and a lot of that is present in this election. Especially when, as Guy was saying, turnout wasn't high. There didn't seem to be tons of energy, even relative to other City elections, for this primary. And like I was mentioning before, that might not change unless there's one of these sort of big narratives that sort of - and they can be unpredictable like that Amazon money bomb, or who knows, maybe there's going to be another one of these tree protests - that really galvanize the voter imagination at the right moment and, or something around drugs and make it - pull an election out of the normal sort of rut of where you have these two general political factions and electorates in the city that are fairly evenly balanced. So it'll be interesting to see if there's something like that that grabs people and makes this time different in some way. [00:19:31] Crystal Fincher: What are your thoughts, Melissa? [00:19:34] Melissa Santos: While I think there's a lot of potential for change on the council, that's mostly - to me - the function of there being four open seats. And then, actually, we'll probably get to this in our last moments, but probably there'll be five seats that change over on the council, it looks like - which is five out of nine, that's a majority. So there's a lot of potential for change. However, it doesn't strike me that the incumbents are in danger of losing necessarily. So the change is just from new people coming in, but not throwing the old people out - is what it looks like. Lewis might be the one exception. He's the closest to potentially losing his seat, but I'm not certain that will happen either. So we could just end up with a lot of new voices and a lot of the incumbents all staying, which - the new voices may be aligned with the mayor, it's hard to say - I was just doing napkin math and looking at vote counts and how it will work out. But to that point, though, we don't know how some of these folks yet would vote on certain issues. So it's even hard to do that. Do I know where Joy Hollingsworth stands on certain, every single vote that the council's had on housing policy and taxing in the past five years? You know - I actually don't. So I don't know how those votes would shake out even if, whichever faction is elected. But I do think the progressive candidates are doing well in a lot of these races, so that will be interesting to see. [00:20:56] Daniel Beekman: It might just be that the biggest change in dynamic is something that has nothing to do with November, and it's that - no more Sawant on the council. Not that she always gets what she wants - that's hardly the case, but that's just been such a constant dynamic at City Hall for the last 10 years. And that could just change the way things are done and the sort of the whole political landscape up there on the dais at City Council as much as some of these other seats swapping out or who gets in those seats. [00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. And I think - once again I hope people, whether you're an organization who's going to be doing forums or examining that or voters as you have opportunities to have conversations with these candidates - that you ask them where they stand and you hold them accountable for stating their position, for stating how they would have voted, for talking about how they did vote when they voted on different things so that you know what you're getting in terms of a councilmember and their vote. I think that there's growing frustration around looking at some of these challenges that we're facing in the City of Seattle and around the region, whether it's homelessness or public safety or climate change or taxation or progressive revenue, that there's been a lot of rhetoric over the past several years but maybe not the kind of change that people would expect based on some of the broad rhetoric that people have heard. And so I think the lesson to take from that is to really drill down and not just have people give you their very rosy, I-believe-the-children-are-the-future type sayings, but when they can't get everybody to agree, when everyone gathered around the table doesn't come up with one solution, what are they willing to step up and advocate for? What are they willing to stand up and say - Okay, I know this may not make everyone happy, but this is what I believe we need to do and how we need to move forward. I think those will be the most enlightening conversations that come out of this general election and will be the most helpful for voters making decisions. I do want to talk about these King County Council races. And one of these races features a current Seattle City Councilmember, Teresa Mosqueda, in the District 8 race against current Burien mayor, Sofia Aragon. This had a very strong showing - again for a Seattle City Council incumbent - Teresa Mosqueda with 57.56% of the vote right now, Sofia Aragon 37.57%. I don't think it's controversial to say that this is extremely likely to result in Teresa Mosqueda winning this race in the general election. We still have to go through it - nothing is absolutely set in stone, but this is about as safe as you can look as an incumbent. And interestingly enough, another Seattle City councilmember who has been on the forefront of big progressive policy wins - probably at the top of the list, the JumpStart Tax, which has been very consequential for the City of Seattle. What was your take of this race, and what do you think the big issues were or what this says about voters here in this race? - starting with Guy. [00:24:47] Guy Oron: I think the first outcome, I think, is just it shows how important high quality candidates are. I think Teresa is exemplary qualified. I think she has a lot of connections with local labor organizations, local community groups. And so she was really able to outmatch Sofia Aragon in that. And it also showed that I think that district was looking for more than just platitudes about policing and homelessness. And the third thing is maybe it's also a backlash against Aragon's handling of the recent saga over homelessness in Burien, and just how much the city has intensified vitriol against its unhoused population under her majority control. So those were my three takeaways. [00:25:45] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And for those unfamiliar, a dramatic saga currently playing out still in the City of Burien, where there have been a number of sweeps that have taken place with some homeless encampments there in the city. Those sweeps have to operate in a constitutionally legal framework. It looks like the City of Burien got outside of that framework - they were warned by the King County Executive that they were outside of that - you can't sweep people without an offer of shelter. But sometimes in cities, a major issue is that they don't have the resources to do that. Uniquely in Burien, King County offered to provide shelter and a number of Pallets [shelters] , a million dollars worth of that basically - Hey, work alongside us and we'll help you work through this with your population. And from the mayor, the deputy mayor on down basically rejected that offer and would rather not take that up, not house the population, and double down on more punitive criminalized efforts, which it seems may not be very popular in the city. And whether people favor more punitive or more evidence-based solutions there - seems like the one thing people do want is action taken. And when it looks like that isn't being taken, that's a challenge - that may have been a factor here in this race. I'm wondering what kind of addition to the council, or what does it look like voters voted for in terms of policy here and in terms of potential budget impacts or taxation? How did you see this, Melissa? [00:27:32] Melissa Santos: As you mentioned earlier, Mosqueda was really active in getting a tax on big business. This was the Amazon tax that actually ended up passing, after the head tax - kind of was an effort that failed in 2018. Mosqueda picked up the pieces and there were others, too, but she led this effort to actually get a tax on business passed in Seattle, which I think is a pretty big achievement, given how spectacularly that effort fell apart previously. And so she's sometimes been vilified by this - Sawant, for instance, as being too willing to work with people or something. But if you do get an Amazon tax out of it, then that seems to please progressives for the most part. So I think you will get some progressive views on tax policy on the County Council if Mosqueda is elected, which she is likely to be, it looks like. And Mosqueda is interesting because she is not - she has not, I don't think, walked away from the idea of saying - I don't, the number of police is not necessarily equivalent to having great public safety. I don't think we need all these police. She hasn't really walked back from her statements on that so much as maybe Dan Strauss and others here. And this was a real interesting contrast, because that's exactly where Aragon was going after her, saying - Defund the police has failed. Has the City Council of Seattle actually - did they actually follow through with actually defunding stuff? Not quite exactly, but the discussion certainly happened and that was a side that Mosqueda was interested in - looking at other solutions as opposed to hiring more cops, for sure, that's certainly fair to say. The voters in that area seem to think that's fine - 20 point spread here, it's not close. So I think that the thing that interests me most - I think the County Council is interesting, and then Mosqueda will join that and it will create another progressive voice in the County Council. But then we're going to have a fifth City Council seat that needs to be filled, and that will happen by appointment. And that's wild - voters aren't really going to be involved in that. And again, getting ahead of myself - the election has not happened, but 20 point spread, like we can probably assume there's going to be a fifth opening on the City Council. So that's the fifth seat that we aren't even really talking about on the ballot, which then there'll be people who parade through the City Council presenting themselves for the job. And they will have that happen probably toward the end of this year after the elections are over, or maybe early January, depending on the timing. But that will mean a majority of the City Council is changing over, and it could be not a progressive person replacing Mosqueda on the City Council. They won't be super far right or anything, but you could get a more centrist person than she is in that role because voters don't really have a say in it. [00:30:23] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and certainly whoever winds up on the council is going to be very consequential in that decision. What are your thoughts, Dan? [00:30:31] Daniel Beekman: Oh, I was just looking at the Election Night results map - and I should plug Washington Community Alliance because they did this and then put it out there, so that's what I'm looking at. But the interesting thing - I think it might be a little bit tempting because Sofia Aragon is an elected official - is she the mayor right now of Burien? Yeah, she's a mayor of Burien. So it might be a little tempting to read views into the whole Burien brouhah in this result. And maybe there's some of that. But looking at the map, Burien was actually - relatively speaking, she did decently. And the district also includes the dense part of Capitol Hill and the dense part of West Seattle - and that's where Mosqueda cleaned up. So I think you could a little bit more look at this and say it's the opposite of a repudiation in terms of Mosqueda's work on the City Council. But I would be a little bit more hesitant to read into it all that much about Burien, even though maybe some of that could be going on. [00:31:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's an interesting point. And again, I think that the mapping - more mapping options is wonderful. Kind of similar with first night results, I caution people against looking at first night precinct results - those tell a different story in the same way that the numbers tell a different story. So I'm super eager to dive into these when we have full results on those. And looking at that seems to be more enlightening and more accurate as to where things wind up there, but a really interesting view. And then in the other competitive King County Council race, District 4, where there were three pretty progressive candidates actually in this race in the primary where there was Jorge Barón, Sarah Reyneveld, and then Becka Johnson Poppe. Looking at this in comparison to the City Council races, the other County Council race, this is a race where all three of these candidates were, I think it's probably fair to say most people would consider them all to be progressives. And I've moderated one or two forums for this in the primary election. And these answers were routinely to the left of several of the city councilmembers here. But it looks like - in this race, an interesting dynamic - Jorge Barón got in the race a little bit later. He was previously involved in the legislative session, and so had to finish that up before joining the race, but ended up securing the endorsements of both The Times and The Stranger, which most people don't generally do. Usually there are only select few candidates each cycle who wind up getting both of those endorsements. He did. And it definitely shows in the results with Jorge - usually you don't see someone in an open seat primary getting over 50% - jorge Barón is currently at 50.65%. Sarah Reyneveld also advancing through to the general election at 28.7% here. How do you think this race shaped up and what did you see from this race, Melissa? [00:34:18] Melissa Santos: Jorge is just such a - has a big, big lead, as you said - and getting, again, this is not an incumbent getting almost 51% of the vote. This is a new candidate. But I do think this speaks to Jorge having done a lot of work. When we go back to 2017 and people rushing to SeaTac airport to respond to President, then-President Trump's ban on travel from certain Muslim countries, Jorge Barón was at the forefront of a lot of work. He was at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, I believe - off the top of my head, I think of it as the acronym, so I hope I have the full name correct here - but he's done so much work there where he's gotten a lot of earned media coverage because of doing a lot of work on behalf of people in the community. I think that, even if he hadn't campaigned at all - which I know he didn't just sit on the sidelines - but that did a lot of work before he even started campaigning. And I think that's reflected in the numbers here. [00:35:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. And to people looking to learn lessons when you're running - this is an excellent example of someone building their profile through serving in the community and people being aware of the work that they're doing, seeing tangible ways that that is playing out in the community. I think Jorge certainly benefited from that and benefited from just people saying - I certainly was a supporter of the work at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project and so impactful and important in the community. How did you see this, Guy? [00:35:55] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think it really shows Jorge Barón's ground game kind of making, or rather the opposite of ground game, the networking. And just having served in the community for so long, I think, was probably what got him that endorsement - and familiarity with policy issues for years. Yeah, and I think it's a bit of a unicorn endorsement. I'm very curious what the deliberation was between The Seattle Times and The Stranger editorial boards. And it does show just how much power they have as gatekeepers, particularly in more low-turnout elections like these August primaries. [00:36:38] Crystal Fincher: How did you see this, Daniel? [00:36:40] Daniel Beekman: I don't have that much to add - I think Melissa and Guy nailed it. Only one anecdote is that The Stranger/Seattle Times double endorsement is like a unicorn, should be a slam dunk - but actually, Jon Grant in 2017 had both - got defeated, I think, pretty handily by Teresa Mosqueda, who we were just talking about. So it's not an absolute slam dunk always, but in this case, it looks like it probably will be. [00:37:14] Crystal Fincher: Definite themes of Teresa Mosqueda as a powerhouse in a number of different ways, it seems like. Now, as we've talked about a number of these races and we're almost done with time, so I guess just going around the horn here - What are you paying attention to most? What do you think is going to be the most interesting or impactful thing in the general election, either as a theme for these races or in any particular race that you're following? starting with Melissa. [00:37:46] Melissa Santos: Oh, geez. Okay. Yeah, I am really interested to know what people think about tax policy and whether they're supportive of new taxes that go beyond the JumpStart Tax because the City does have a budget deficit - not right at this precise moment over the next six months, but pretty big projected budget deficit going toward 2025 - and I'm curious how candidates will respond with specifics about what they'd support to deal with that. And then I'm also interested in where the candidates are on these police issues, because it's again - when you talk about slogans like "defund the police," that isn't even exactly what happened in Seattle. So it's - what are we talking about? And so that's what I'm watching - is what candidates actually have to say about that and what they mean when they say - I don't like defund the police - or, what does this mean? So I think I'm just really, now that there's not 10 candidates in a race, looking forward to actually figuring out where people stand on issues - hopefully. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: And Guy? [00:38:52] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think I'm looking forward to see if the economy rebounds a bit and if people start feeling a little less burned out from politics - and whether candidates and their ground game can really go upstream and try to convince some of the disillusioned young folks, and especially more of the progressive folks who are not as happy with Biden and are not looking forward to voting, and just convince them that voting matters and that they're not throwing away their time by filling out the ballot. [00:39:29] Crystal Fincher: And what about you, Daniel? [00:39:30] Daniel Beekman: I guess in Seattle City Council races, I'm just curious to see, I think the more conservative, moderate candidates - maybe unfair to paint with a broad brush, but that sort of side of things - will probably, whether there are policy solutions that are realistic to go along with these, but they'll bang on - Oh, we need to crack down or get tough with crime and drugs - and that kind of thing. I'm interested to see, though, what the left-wing candidates try to use or wave as the banner, policy-wise. Is it raising taxes on businesses more? Is it the rent control? Is it another minimum wage hike? What is it? Can they find something to latch on to that's going to capture the voter's imagination? And then I'm also just curious about some of these suburban races, like I was talking about before we went live - about Bothell and Burien and some interesting stuff up there. Bothell has this sort of growing urbanist political streak, and will that continue with one of the races up there? Looks like it could. And Kenmore finding itself dealing with affordable housing issues more and maybe getting a little bit of a lefty push - and will that continue? So I'm going to keep my eye on those. [00:41:06] Crystal Fincher: What I'm most looking forward to is to see where donors settle in these races. Certainly donors were spread out amongst a variety of candidates in the primary, but in some of these races, it's not super clear at the moment where the candidate stances are on all the issues. Some races it's pretty clear to say that there's a progressive and a moderate, others it's to be determined and the details of that are yet to be determined. So it's going to be interesting to see where donors consolidate - who more corporate-type donors feel are the candidates that are going to be on their side, where they invest - usually they do not donate to places where they don't feel pretty sure they're going to get a return on that investment of the candidates. So that's going to be interesting to see, and I will be paying attention to that throughout the primary, certainly. And with that, thank you for listening to this roundtable as it now comes to a close. I want to thank our panelists - Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos - for their insight and making this an engaging and informative event. To those watching online, thanks so much for tuning in. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page, YouTube channel, or on Twitter, where we're @HacksWonks. Special thanks to essential member of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinator for this evening, Dr. Shannon Cheng. If you missed voting in the election or know anyone who did, make sure to register to vote, update your registration, or find information for the next election at myvote.wa.gov. And as a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release in Washington state, even if you are still under community supervision. Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our Tuesday topical interviews and our Friday week-in-review shows or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher, and we'll see you next time.

For this Tuesday show, we present Part 1 of the Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable which was live-streamed on August 8, 2023 with special guests - journalists Daniel Beekman, Guy Oron, and Melissa Santos. In Part 1, the panel breaks down primary election results for the crowded Seattle City Council races in Districts 1 through 5 - looking at how vote shares, campaign finances, redistricting, candidate quality, endorsements, and more played a part in who came out as the top two. Stay tuned for Part 2 of the roundtable releasing this Friday for more election analysis! As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's special guests, Daniel Beekman at @DBeekman, Guy Oron at @GuyOron, and Melissa Santos at @MelissaSantos1.    Resources Hacks & Wonks 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable Livestream | August 8th, 2023   Transcript [00:00:00] Shannon Cheng: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Shannon Cheng, Producer for the show. You're listening to Part 1 of our 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable that was originally aired live on Tuesday, August 8th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure you stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. Thank you for tuning in! [00:00:37] Crystal Fincher: Hello everyone - good evening. Welcome to the Hacks & Wonks Post-Primary Roundtable. I'm Crystal Fincher, I'm a political consultant and host of the Hacks & Wonks podcast and radio show. And today I'm thrilled to be joined by three of my favorite hacks and wonks - local reporters - to break down what happened in last week's primary election. We're excited to be able to livestream this roundtable on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Additionally, we are recording this roundtable for broadcast on KODX and KVRU radio, podcast, and it will be available with a full text transcript on officialhacksandwonks.com. Our esteemed panelists for the evening are: Politics and Communities reporter for The Seattle Times, Daniel Beekman. Staff Reporter for Real Change, covering local news, labor, policing, the environment, criminal legal issues and politics, Guy Oron. And Seattle Axios reporter, Melissa Santos. Welcome everyone. So I think we will get started talking about Seattle and all of these races for Seattle City Council. This is a year where we had some redistricted council districts in Seattle - we had a number of incumbents decide not to seek reelection, and a few who did - and some really interesting results. So I think we'll start in District 1, which is in the West Seattle area, where we see a result of Maren Costa with the lead - currently at 33.16% - and the second person getting through the primary, Rob Saka, with 24% here. So I guess just starting out - how are these candidates positioned, and what do you think this primary says about the state of the district and the state of this race going into the general? Starting with Daniel - what are your thoughts here? [00:02:47] Daniel Beekman: Oh, yeah, good questions - I'm interested to hear what the other folks have to say. I guess the one thing that strikes me about the race is that, like in - I think - every other race of the seven districts, we're going into the general election with a candidate who was endorsed by The Stranger's editorial board and one endorsed by The Seattle Times editorial board - which operates separately from our newsroom. And that's pretty typical for Seattle City Council elections. And maybe even without those endorsements, this race and others would have ended up the way they did - but I think that's something to note in this race and others. The other thing that struck me about this race is two pretty interesting candidates, background-wise - especially to some extent in Seattle politics with Costa. Doesn't really fit the - if there's a typical sort of Seattle candidate, especially in the left lane - the progressive, more progressive lane. I don't know if she fits quite into that. She doesn't come from a - she hasn't worked at the City Council, she doesn't come from the County or State Labor Council, she hasn't been steeped in local Democratic legislative district politics or anything like that, I don't think. She's from the tech world and was an activist in that world. So I don't know - I found that interesting, I don't know if that's a major takeaway - but it's something in that race that I think will be interesting to watch going forward. [00:04:41] Crystal Fincher: Go ahead, Melissa. What did you think? [00:04:42] Melissa Santos: I will be curious. It's really hard in a race where there's - what, we have eight candidates here again, or was it actually nine, eight in this one as well - to predict how the votes that the candidates didn't get will shake out. I'm really curious to see where Phil Tavel's votes go because - he ran last time too - and again, more one of the more business-friendly candidates in this race. And I'm just not sure that there'll be a one-for-one accounting for those votes, necessarily, when you come into November. Theoretically, those votes would go to the more central lane candidate, who is Rob Saka. But I don't know that that math is a direct line when there's a lot of time between here and November. And also, they're just - sometimes people are really attracted to someone's personal story in these races, right? We're focused as reporters and commentators sometimes on - who's the moderate, who's the lefty, or whatever. And sometimes I don't know that voters always are. Maybe there's one particular idea they had, that they talked about at the door, that people were into or a percentage were into. And there's also progressive candidates here that had some votes that are not making it to the primary, so I just don't know - I have zero idea how the votes for the non-winning candidates will shake out. [00:06:06] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Guy? [00:06:08] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think to start - with all these Seattle races, I think the biggest message is that most people didn't vote. 64% of folks didn't vote in these elections. And it'll be interesting to see where those people land in the general. It did seem like a very competitive race - all these City Council races - but especially the open ones. And I think Maren was able to really use her credentials as an activist to get a lot of support among progressives, and while the more right-of-center lane was a little more split between Phil and Rob Saka. And it'll be interesting to see how it measures up. I think right-leaning candidates won just about 50%, compared to progressive ones that won about 45%. I was doing some rough arithmetic earlier - it is pretty narrow margin. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. [00:07:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is a race where it looks like this is going to be a competitive race in the general election. We did see an interesting role that donors played in this race where there were some substantial fundraising numbers from a number of candidates, even several who didn't make it through. I think there were a few who eclipsed $50,000 who did not make it through the general election. And then you have the two that did make it through raising a considerable amount of money, in addition to an independent expenditure on behalf of Rob Saka that made some news - for a Trump-supporting donor included in there and certainly more business-aligned candidate there. How do you see the role of donors and money and the way that the primary election shaped up, and what do you think that says about the general election? - starting with you, Guy. [00:08:15] Guy Oron: It'll be interesting to see. I think with Democracy Vouchers, it really changes the game and allows people who don't rely on corporate donations to run. And I think that gives Costa an edge there to fight at least an even battle. It'll be interesting to see if this election is more like 2019, where corporate donations sparked a big backlash, or more like 2021 when they got folks like Davison over the line. [00:08:49] Melissa Santos: The independent expenditures, I think, will be interesting to watch because theoretically the Democracy Vouchers do even the playing field. But once you get all that independent expenditure money in there, it's not limited in the same way. So I do think we'll see this huge flood of outside money going forward. And I am watching how - whether that kind of undermines the intent of the Democracy Voucher program. We've had a few years now where we've watched how this plays out. But particularly this year, I'm looking at that because I just think there will be a lot of outside money. And there already has been in this race in particular - maybe not a lot yet, but more than in other races, of city council races - and that can tip the scales. But like Guy said, there has been backlash before. We certainly saw that with the $1 million Amazon donation to the Chamber's PAC that kind of seemed to have that kind of resurgence of the progressive candidates in protest a few years ago. [00:09:53] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think it would be right to expect big outside spending in this race and some of the other races that look like they could be very competitive - that seems very likely. And one of the sort of quirks of this race in terms of spending in the primary was that there were some candidates - as you mentioned Crystal - like Stephen Brown got under 10%, spent money or raised quite a bit of money. But a fair chunk of that, I think - just looking, $34,000 or something like that was from himself, I believe. So that kind of tips the scales sometimes, or it can be confusing looking at the overall totals. But yeah, this is one of those races where I would be surprised if there wasn't a lot of independent spending in the general election. [00:10:52] Melissa Santos: You're saying bagels can't buy a City Council seat, Dan? Is that what you're saying? [00:10:57] Daniel Beekman: I'm just saying that this City - what was it? The mailer - This City deserves better bagels? [00:11:05] Melissa Santos: Bagels. Yeah, maybe that wasn't effective - maybe a different audience, maybe next cycle. [00:11:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see. And another race where sometimes people just have a ton of money and they think - I have a ton of money, I can loan myself money, donate to the campaign. But more often than not, we see those predominantly self-funders not necessarily finishing all that well. It actually does take the support of people in the community and those donations are basically a measure of support from people. And that seems to be important in overall results. I do want to talk about District 2 now, which includes the Rainier Valley, southeast Seattle. And that is where incumbent Tammy Morales is facing Tanya Woo, who will be proceeding through to the primary. And this is one of those races where in Seattle we see numbers shift from Election Night to others - this certainly was no exception, a race that shifted. And as we stand now, Tammy Morales - over 52% of the vote here, 52.26%. Tanya Woo with 42.58%, so about a 10-point spread. This is one of the races where people were wondering if there was going to be a backlash to the council that showed up. Lots of talk going in about - Oh, the council may not be popular or have high approval ratings. I've noted several times, similar to Congressional approval numbers, those don't really have much bearing to individual Congressional results. Here to individual city council results, this is seemingly a strong finish for Tammy Morales as an incumbent here. How did you see this race, Guy? [00:12:52] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think initially on Election Night - oftentimes media covers it as a definitive - especially not local media, but national media. It did seem close, but the fact that Tammy Morales won by 10% - got over 50% - that's huge for her. And I think it will be very, very hard for Tanya Woo to unseat her at this point. And it shows that Morales has a lot of support from a lot of the district. And so, especially considering the fact that Harrell went really hard supporting Woo and it looks like that didn't work out too well for him. [00:13:36] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree, Daniel? [00:13:38] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I think to an extent. Definitely the race swung a lot - I think more than any other from Election Night to now - although other races did also have a leftward swing with the later ballots. It looks like to stand any kind of a chance, Tanya Woo will have to - she's a first-time candidate and raise her game, her candidate game, in the next couple months. And also it will be interesting to see - what I was looking for on Election Night - will that race be close enough for the people who fund those independent expenditures to decide that they want to get in? I don't know, but maybe they weren't necessarily expecting her to - Woo to come out on top, but maybe they're looking at - Well, is it close enough to make it worth our while to spend? And if I was her, I wouldn't want to hear the race described like that. But I think it's just reality as people are looking in from the outside and they're making decisions about where their money is best, would best be spent. So it'll be interesting to see if - what calculation those folks make - whether people think it was close enough to be worth pouring money in or not. [00:15:13] Melissa Santos: Because remember - this was one of the least crowded races. It was just Tanya Woo, Tammy Morales, and then Margaret Elisabeth who got less than 5% of the vote. So it's not one of those sort of mystery, how did the vote split situations as much. This one is more likely to be pretty predictive of the general election. And yeah, there's only so much money to spend - even though we talk about tons of money in politics, people don't want to just throw it at nothing. And I don't think it's a lost cause - I think Tanya Woo has a chance - it doesn't look as good as it did on the night of the election for her. [00:15:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. This - to your point, Melissa - more than the others, I think - one, could be viewed through the lens of, Is this a referendum on Tammy Morales and/or the council? And also, this is one where it does pretty much reflect what the race is going to be in the general election. I don't think we've seen a situation before, barring a massive scandal, where an incumbent has finished with over 52% of the vote and lost. To your point, those trying to figure out - there are a number of open seats, there are certainly seats that some people want to pick up - Is it worth spending in those and this one? - is going to be part of the calculation that people make. But this is a harder one - it's hard to see incumbents losing in this kind of a position. How do you see the general election shaping up here, Daniel? [00:16:49] Daniel Beekman: I think we know what kind of a race Tammy Morales is likely to run because she's - I think she's run similar races to some extent, when she won her seat and then the race before that when she nearly unseated Bruce Harrell. So I think we know what that's going to look like. I think the question is more how Tanya Woo is going to try to make up the vote she didn't get or gain in the general - what that looks like, whether that means leaning into her, more into her sort of community work in the CID [Chinatown International District] , or if it means hammering on a particular issue like public safety or something like that. So I think that's - I don't know - but that's what I would be looking for is where this sort of question lies. But, yeah, I think it's - incumbents don't get knocked off very often. I was trying to think - I probably should have just looked it up, but I was trying to think before this about when's the last time the Seattle City Council incumbent was unseated and I was thinking about Jean Godden losing in the 2015 primary in a crowded race. But I think I could be totally spacing on a more recent one. But that seems like, in my mind, the most recent one and that's eight years ago now. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: Go ahead, Melissa. [00:18:22] Melissa Santos: I have a barking dog, so I'm trying to spare everyone from that. But yeah - now that I think about it - I was thinking - time is flat to me at this point, but Richard Conlin was a couple years before that. So what you're saying may be very well the most recent. We haven't seen a lot of incumbents go down and have those dramatic flips recently. It has happened, but not super recently. I will say - for Morales, since Sawant is leaving the council, she is, I think, the most - in this traditional lens of going back to who's left and who's center, right? Morales is the sort of furthest left member I think we have up for election this year. So the fact that she did get pretty good results in the primary, it suggests to me that there might not be this huge, huge upswell of being fed up with far-left City Council politics. There's certainly things people are unhappy with - we've seen polling that says people want more action on stuff - housing, homelessness. People want action. They want things to change, but they don't - necessarily voting out the most liberal candidates at this point. [00:19:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I think, I've talked about it before in other places, but sometimes we hear about polling a lot and it's - Well, people are unhappy. And that's a reflection on people being unhappy with City councilmembers and approval ratings are low. And I think there are a lot of people who are unhappy with the state of things today, but I think sometimes we make assumptions about why that is and assume that that automatically means that they're unhappy with their councilmember. And that's not necessarily the case. I think that this is yet another example of that, where we need to go further and ask - Okay, so you're not happy with the state of things. Is it because - when it comes to public safety, do you want a more punitive and carceral approach, or do you want more intervention and community violence intervention and more addressing root causes? And I think if you look at the people on the ground in Seattle, they do want to do more to address some of the systemic issues that we have, to address some of the root causes, get more to prevention instead of trying to respond to so much after the fact. And I think that these results - almost in this race more than others - where there was a direct contrast between the two and a direct policy difference between the two. And we saw voters basically affirm that the direction Tammy Morales is heading is one that they're, that most are happy with. And especially in a lower turnout primary election, in an off-year, this is where you would expect unhappiness to really materialize if there was a desire to - kick all the bums out, that saying for people who are elected, but that didn't seem to materialize with two of the three incumbents finishing over 50%. And the third with the plurality of the vote there. How do you think this moves forward with that, Guy? [00:21:37] Guy Oron: Yeah, I do think it's a vindication for some of the people who were in the Solidarity Budget coalition, who are supporting decriminalization and defund, that maybe they see that one of the councilmembers that stood by their side got over 50%. I think they'll be reassured by that. I do think Tanya Woo got a lot of support in the CID and was able to really voice to that neighborhood that has been ignored a lot in the media by policymakers - or used as tokens, but not actually given proper seat at the table. So I think even if Morales wins the general election, that'll be something on the top of her priorities - is to better address the CID. And I think that was something that Woo was able to bring, even if she doesn't win in the general. [00:22:36] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Go ahead, Daniel. [00:22:39] Daniel Beekman: Oh, I was just going to say - and there's also sort of the differences district-to-district and candidate-to-candidate where - definitely Tammy Morales had a, looks like a strong result. On the other hand, you saw Dan Strauss trying to distance himself from some of his pro-defund advocacy from back in 2020 - I think I saw a mailer. And so whether he's right or not, he's obviously a little bit concerned about some of that coming back to bite him with voters in his district, so there's some differences district to district as well. [00:23:24] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Another district - District 3, where Councilmember Kshama Sawant will not be seeking reelection, so this is for the person who will succeed Councilmember Sawant. And so in this race, we have the two making it through - Joy Hollingsworth with 36.89% right now and Alex Hudson being the second, making it through with 36.52%. Another very crowded race - this is a very close result, maybe the closest result. And two very different candidates than the current incumbent. What do you think this says about the district, and what do you think this says about the race? - starting with Melissa. [00:24:12] Melissa Santos: It is really close - you're less than a percentage point between these candidates now that we've seen the results shake out. And it is another situation where you have Joy Hollingsworth being the Seattle Times Editorial Board-endorsed candidate - not the newsroom, but the editorial board - and Alex Hudson being the Stranger-endorsed candidate up against one another. However, it's interesting to me because Alex Hudson is then - would be in the camp of being this more progressive candidate, right? - which in certain ways, she is. She's a long-time transit advocate and is - I remember, one time, her doing a video of confronting Tim Eyman, the anti-tax initiative pusher. And so she's done those sorts of things, but she's also someone who's worked a little bit more within the establishment than - certainly than Sawant, for instance - lobbying, building coalitions. So we're not seeing, and this has been said a lot about this race and I'm not the only one to say it, but we're not seeing anyone who wants to burn the barn down here in this race in the same way. We're not seeing a Socialist candidate in the same way even, and I'm actually - I haven't talked to these candidates as much as Dan and Guy probably have, but I actually think they're closer together on some issues than maybe it appears from those divergent endorsements. And I think some of that is likely to come to light during the general election, and it's possible that their positions don't as neatly line up necessarily with this sort of pro-business and labor/left activism, although in some ways they do. [00:25:45] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree, Guy? [00:25:48] Guy Oron: I definitely agree that it's a huge change from Kshama Sawant and either one of the candidates won't be Socialists. And so I think that'll be something for Seattle left to think about - how do you build momentum for a more broad base, long-term institutional victory - to get five council seats at least instead of just one. And that's - they have to go to the drawing board and think about that long-term. But in terms of Hudson and Hollingsworth, I think Hudson started off a little slow, but managed to snag some important endorsements - and that's credit to her and her long-time presence in the policy world in Seattle. And I think Hollingsworth also is a very compelling candidate - I've seen her at so many different events in the community. She really shows up - for example, when Nurturing Roots was closing back in March, not even in her district, but she was the only candidate to show up and show support. So I think that's credit to her and really cultivating her base in the CD [Central District] . And I definitely think it will be a tight race. Progressives did - all the progressive candidates together did win about 4 or 5% more than the more moderate candidates, so it'll be interesting to see if Hollingsworth can manage to build a coalition of moderate liberals and especially in the CD, turn out folks who aren't voting just to get over the line. [00:27:30] Crystal Fincher: Do you agree, Daniel? [00:27:32] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I guess this is a race where Bruce Harrell has endorsed Joy Hollingsworth, right? So it'll be interesting to see what kind of impact that has, if any, that can be discerned - Mayor Bruce Harrell. Alex Hudson has a varied background, but coming out of the Transportation Choices Coalition - which is transit advocacy but labor-aligned - and in the world of the big players in Seattle politics and been a policy and politician factory. Rob Johnson, a councilmember, was the Executive Director there. And Jessyn Farrell, former state lawmaker, and other people - so it's been churning out folks into government, so that's interesting. But I think Melissa and Guy covered a lot of this, so I don't have a whole lot to add. I had noticed just on social media a little bit - and I should say that I'm not, I should shout out my coworker Sarah Grace Taylor, who's been doing a lot of the coverage of the City Council races this year for us rather than myself, so I'm not the expert - but just on observing on social media, I feel like I've seen a little bit of different emphases in how the two candidates are positioning themselves. Joy Hollingsworth trying to emphasize her community ties. And Alex Hudson - I just saw on the way over to do this - talking up transit as an issue. Obviously because she's - that's some of her background. But also she must think it will play well with voters saying - in that district that's pretty transit reliant. [00:29:32] Melissa Santos: In theory, Joy Hollingsworth would be the candidate who's newer to politics - in theory - if you look at them. However, Joy is coming from a family of sort of political legacies in a way as well. Her grandmother Dorothy was the first African American woman elected to the Seattle School Board - and I think that's part of her community story a little bit that Joy is playing up - being from the Central District, being part of the legacy of people making change and pushing forward, which is interesting since she's the more establishment candidate endorsed by the mayor. But that's why the dynamics of this race are a little interesting to me. Because the narrative is not as clean as what we've looked at - races in the past where it's, again, lefty versus more business friendly Democrat kind of races in Seattle. [00:30:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's spot on. And this is a district where there's a Socialist as an incumbent. This is arguably the most left district in the city that doesn't quite have a candidate that speaks to that far left end that Kshama Sawant does. And I do agree that there are potentially a number of overlaps or places where the policy differences may not be as clear from the very beginning. So I think this is going to be a race where it's going to be important to examine where the candidates stand. It's going to be important to understand where the differences are and to really understand what they're bringing in terms of - not just votes, but where they're willing to lead and push, perhaps, the council. What are going to be their signature issues? And what are going to be the issues where they may just be an additional vote? I think that there's a lot that people still don't know, and this is going to be one of the most interesting districts for trying to ferret out what those differences and contrasts are. Also notice that fundraising in this race - again, a lot of money raised throughout the district. This is a race - we saw the result being very close - also the amount raised, both raising about $94,000 there. And so this is another race where both seem to have a lot of fundraising capacity. Is this going to be a race where outside entities get involved? And I also think those outside entities are going to be listening for cues from each of those candidates. Who do funders see as their ally on the council? Who does labor see as a stronger ally on the council? I think that there's still more that they're figuring out here. And those donations, those types of donors and those endorsements, are also going to do a lot of speaking for these candidates about where they stand and how they're likely to govern. [00:32:26] Melissa Santos: I was surprised that - based on just fundraising - that Alex Cooley didn't do a little bit better because they raised $95,000 as well. I don't know if any of you can explain what happened there, because I expected a better showing for that amount of money - I thought, I don't know - just looking from the outside at it. [00:32:42] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, I didn't follow it close enough to know - was it mostly Democracy Vouchers? [00:32:46] Melissa Santos: Yes, must be. Yeah, it's a mystery to me. [00:32:50] Guy Oron: He was the only candidate to run on a platform of only taking Democracy Vouchers and he didn't accept private donations, which I think is an interesting platform and could prove compelling if you think about - I'm not beholden to any interests, only the people. But I think his ground game was strong, but he didn't have a lot of institutional support from people like The Stranger, and so that's why he fell short. [00:33:22] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, and to pick up on something that you mentioned when you introduced the race, Crystal - it's interesting to think about - Sawant won her seat in 2013, so 10 years ago. And to think about how much District 3 - those neighborhoods, like Capitol Hill and the CD, have changed in the last 10 years. And think about is that why we didn't get someone with Kshama Sawant's politics in this race? Or is it because people are tired of her personally and that's soured them? But they narrowly voted down a recall just recently, so they're not that sick of it. I don't know, I find that interesting to ponder on whether the fact that there are two very unlike-Sawant candidates and two non-Socialist candidates going into the general election has anything to do with her or not, has anything to do with changes in the electorate or not. I don't have the answer, but I'm intrigued by that question. [00:34:37] Crystal Fincher: I don't have the answer to that one either, but I do think this is a race where endorsements mattered a lot because it was hard, just on the face, to see some of the automatic differences between the candidates in a way that you can in some of the other districts perhaps. And so this is another one where we talk about the importance of The Times and The Stranger endorsements and that certainly carried through here, in people looking at The Stranger as a cue to see who is considered to be the most progressive. Lots of times people are doing the same thing with The Times on the other side, if they want a more moderate presence on the council. And so I think those endorsements really mattered - in this race in particular - but in several of them overall. Also want to talk about the District 4 election. Now this is a district where - we talk about change over the last 10 years - this is certainly a district where I think recent results that we're seeing there reflect an evolution of the district and a change in this district. And so both with redistricting here and in this race, probably one of the cleanest lines between what is considered traditionally someone in the progressive lane and those traditionally in a moderate to conservative lane. How did you see this race shaping up, Guy? [00:35:59] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think it echoes the last 2019 elections, but now Ron P. Davis is number one instead of Alex Pedersen, so that's a good sign for him. And he is the strongest non-incumbent candidate in Seattle, winning 45% of the vote. It does seem like, with more development and just growing density, there are changing demographics. So it could be an opportunity for a pretty dramatic swing towards the left in this district. But still, the more moderate conservative candidates won about 55% of the vote together - Wilson and Maritza Rivera. So it'll be very competitive, and I think it all relies on if Ron can turn out all the students to vote for him who tend to lean more progressive. [00:37:04] Crystal Fincher: How do you see this race, Melissa? [00:37:07] Melissa Santos: Theoretically, it would make sense to add together those sort of more centrist candidates and say - Oh, they got 55% - and I don't disagree with doing that, Guy. The thing that was weird to me is - and I wish I had in front of me at the moment - but there was a mailer that went out and Crystal, you saw this and I just think Dan, you also probably saw this - but where it didn't, it seemed like Wilson was going after Rivera, who was closer to him politically, than he was going after Davis. And there were checkmarks and it's like Davis got more checks being aligned with Wilson than Maritza Rivera did on this particular advertisement and mailer. And I don't know if that kind of communication is going to then make some people think that Davis is more aligned - people who voted for Wilson - if they're going to think, go forward thinking Davis is more their guy than Rivera. Or there's a lot of election communication still yet to happen, so I guess all of that can be reset. But it seemed like that was one of the primary communication that's happening in that district. And it may have disrupted the dynamic in a way of the sort of candidates and saying - Oh yeah, this is now my candidate since mine got knocked out since they're the most similar. And so I'm not sure how that will carry out forward going with this election into the general. [00:38:23] Daniel Beekman: Yeah, that's interesting - whether that mailer will stick in anyone's mind and sour them on Rivera when they might not otherwise be. I think probably what Ken Wilson was going for there was just looking and assuming that - Well, Ron Davis is getting through, it's between me and Maritza Rivera about who's getting through on the other lane, and so let's see if I can make that happen without - like we were talking about - one of these newspaper endorsements. And it didn't work as much as he needed to, at least. Yeah, District 4 is interesting. Shaun Scott ran - I think running as a Democratic Socialist to some extent in 2019 - ran Alex Pedersen really close in District 4 in that year. And I guess my sort of what I'll be watching for in this one is how Ron Davis moves forward - whether he tries to draw really sharp contrast between himself and Maritza Rivera and he thinks that's the key, or if he tries to tack to the center a bit to try to win over some of those maybe slightly more moderate voters or Ken Wilson voters in some way. And I'll just tell a sort of funny story. I went out on Election Day to do some just person-on-the-street voter reporting. And it was funny because I was in District 4 and District 5 for a while talking to voters. And I had two voters - one was this sort of like older boomer, typical Seattle boomer voter, and to some extent - whatever that is. And I said - What are you thinking about? And most of the people I talked to didn't have some sort of mega-narrative about the Seattle election cycle, like we're going to throw out the lefties or we're going to do this. It was more - they're kind of grasping at straws a bit in my little unscientific sample size. But this somewhat older voter said - Well, I care about trees and I went to this tree protest in Wedgwood for Luma the cedar tree. And Ken Wilson was there and he seemed to care, so I'm voting for him - that's a big reason. And then I talked to a voter - more lefty-seeming voter in her 20s, I think - elsewhere, I think in the U district. And they said - Well, I care about climate change and I went to this protest for the cedar tree. And Ron Davis was there, so I'm voting for him. So I don't know if that means anything, but it just goes to show - yeah, so it will be interesting to see, does Ron Davis lean into the tree protest? Or does he lean into let's densify and tax big business? [00:41:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is going to be interesting. And those anecdotes are always so interesting, and I think underscores just from the inside-a-campaign candidate perspective - three quarters of the job, three quarters of the work is in showing up, whether it's on someone's doorstep, whether it's at an event. People want to see that you're actively engaged in the community and in the issues that they care about. So I would just encourage all of the candidates to do that. And the more you can talk to regular voters, the better. But this is an interesting race here. This is another race where we also saw an independent expenditure on behalf of, or in favor of, Maritza Rivera here. And it is an interesting race where - I don't know that this race, these votes consolidate cleanly pre-mailer in the way that they would expect. On top of that, this is a district that, a similar district, just last year elected Darya Farivar. And you think that the general election electorate is going to look more similar to what we saw in an even-year election then - that certainly is more progressive than that district and that area has been for a while. So are we seeing a shift in the preferences of a district? Are we seeing a shift in the issues that are concerning people? Certainly housing affordability is a major issue throughout all of Seattle, but also playing out in this district where I think the previous calculus and assumption was that this is a district full of NIMBYs and they seem to be voting in the opposite direction now. So this is going to be a really interesting race to pay attention to and one that may attract a lot of outside money because there are clearer lanes with a moderate in the race seemingly and a progressive - and looking to really pick up the seat for one or the other. Also want to talk about the District 5 race, which is another interesting, exciting race and was a pretty close race. So we have Cathy Moore here - close overall, especially for the second and third place finisher here - so Cathy Moore finishing with 32.26% of the vote, ChrisTiana ObeySumner - they're finishing with 21.38% of the vote here. How did you see this vote shaping up in the primary? Nilu Jenks is finishing currently in third place, just outside of making it through the primary. Guy, how did you see this developing? [00:44:19] Guy Oron: Yeah, I think the District 5 race was by far the most fractured and we had, I think, tied for the most amount of candidates. And so people - I think a lot of people voted for their first choice and I think ChrisTiana was able to be a sort of dark horse and come out on top. I think a lot of people were expecting Nilu Jenks to win, and so now those voters will have to decide whether they prefer Moore or ChrisTiana - and I think that will decide which way the district goes. But I think North Seattle is not usually thought of as a progressive stronghold, but I think it is surprisingly pretty progressive in terms of where people are voting. And I think people have all sorts of politics, like chaotic politics, where they support trees and density - and how do you reconcile those two, and I think that's up to the candidates to show that they're more well-spoken and have a stronger vision about integrating these various contradictions. [00:45:32] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Melissa? [00:45:34] Melissa Santos: I was just reviewing some of the candidates' sort of statements and where they're coming from - it does encapsulate to me a little bit - you have Cathy Moore talking about public safety. All the candidates are talking about safety and should be talking about public safety probably, but she's coming at - literally in her voter guide statement says - I'm the pragmatic solution - very much very focused on capturing that center lane, people who might want to see a little bit more timely police response is a huge part of her platform. And again, everyone wants the cops to probably, I think, to respond to emergencies probably. I don't think there's too many people saying - well, okay, I retract my statement. It's a very complicated issue, actually. But I mean emphasizing that - as opposed to emphasizing housing and upstream solutions to homelessness, which is where ChrisTiana was doing with her statements. I just think we have a lot of contrast between people talking about housing, to be honest - housing, housing, housing on one side and then people talk about public safety sometimes when you get - in the more traditional races where you get those center lane candidates. And housing is a message that's resonating with people. People, I think, want housing to be a thing. And again, for instance, we had this Social Housing measure pass earlier this year and I think that kind of - Tammy Morales, again, who is leading in her race and getting good, has really been supportive of that social housing measure and finding money to actually implement it. And as far as District - back to District 5 - I think ChrisTiana ObeySumner is also talking about those sorts of things more so than cops and hiring more police, and I think that there's people who want to hear them talk about that. And there certainly were other candidates in this race talking about different solutions to some of the sort of agreed upon crisis we see - maybe homelessness and housing - but I think those sort of holistic solutions, people are listening to that in an interesting way in some of these races. And this is an example of that to me. [00:47:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is a race where I think there was a broader range of viewpoints represented in this race across the spectrum that we see in Seattle. There was Tye Reed also in this race, who was very involved in the Social Housing initiative and that passing, and taking up a left mantle. But a number of progressive candidates - I think, yet again, this was another race where people were trying to figure out who was most aligned with their beliefs and that may have been not as easy as some people would have thought at first glance. And so another race where I think the endorsements from The Times and The Stranger were once again consequential. But I also think this is one where - a lot of times, I think we underestimate sometimes just individual candidate attributes, individual candidate performance, how people are connecting. And especially with how close this race was, particularly between the second and third place finishers - ChrisTiana ObeySumner and Nilu Jenks - I think ChrisTiana did a more effective job at clearly articulating where they stood on issues. And that was more of a challenge for Nilu Jenks, where some people left with some impressions based on what they said and they said things that gave other impressions to people. And so voters trying to reconcile who these candidates are and what kind of votes to expect, endorsing organizations trying to ferret out what kind of votes should they expect from these - I think that this is an example of being clear about where you stand is helpful in getting through to establishment people, getting through to voters, and making the kinds of connections that get you through to the general election. What do you think, Daniel? [00:49:50] Daniel Beekman: I was going to say - yeah, I don't have a lot to add, I don't think, about these particular two candidates. But I spent some time on Election Day - again, my very unscientific sample size, by the Lake City Library and a lot of people were talking about homelessness and people were talking about public drug use. And it will be interesting to see how these candidates navigate some issues like that. I do think that the questions about prosecuting people for using drugs in public - that has been in the headlines recently at City Hall, so that will likely in this race and others be something that is talked about. But Guy mentioned Darya Farivar's - or maybe you did, Crystal, or both of you - that election that she ran and won last year. And I would think that candidates in both District 4 and District 5 might want to be looking at that - and some of it is just about a candidate and their personality and what they have going for them. But if you're a smart candidate in those districts, you're looking at that race and - what did she do? And also just reminded me that - in terms of sort of some changes politically - is that on issues like criminal justice or the legal system, on issues around housing - both zoning, which is traditionally very much a city issue, but also on funding affordable housing - it seems like there are more of those conversations and more action happening in Olympia than there was some years ago. And I don't know if that sort of makes some of these City races feel a little bit less urgent for folks, but it's something that's occurred to me where - some years ago when there was just nothing happening in the State Legislature, when people are looking for help or for change, it made City elections that much more high stakes, but maybe that's been changing a little bit. [00:51:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I also think this is an interesting race just because of the expanded representation that could potentially be coming to the Council - non-binary person, disabled BIPOC person - and that kind of representation being really important. We're seeing so many other members of the community deal with challenges and access issues related to that, that some lived experience could be very enlightening and helpful in crafting solutions that meet the needs of everyone in the City. So I'll be interested to see that explored throughout the general election. And just figuring out, once again, where these candidates stand on issues. There's going to be a lot that the City Council is going to be dealing with over the next several years. And so I hope that there really is an attempt to figure out where the candidates stand and what solutions they feel - not just that they're willing to vote for, but that they're really willing to lean on and try and craft solutions with their colleagues on this for. [00:53:06] Shannon Cheng: You just listened to Part 1 of our 2023 Post-Primary Roundtable that was originally aired live on Tuesday, August 8th. Audio for Part 2 will be running this Friday, so make sure to stay tuned. Full video from the event and a full text transcript of the show can be found on our website officialhacksandwonks.com. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow Crystal @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thank you for tuning in!

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Seattle political reporter and editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett! They discuss the latest in Burien's non-addressing of homelessness, new revenue options presented for Seattle, whether primary results mean Seattle City Council incumbents are doomed or safe, and how candidates who support police alternatives led in primaries. The episode continues with how Mayor Harrell's $27M for drug diversion and treatment adds no new funding, Seattle adding new protections for app-based workers, and signs of a late-summer COVID surge. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett.   Resources “No Solutions for Unsheltered Burien Residents After Another Contentious Council Meeting” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Proposals to Close City Deficit Prompt Immediate Backlash from Businesses, Business-Backed Council Members” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “The Seattle Process Strikes Again” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Final Report of the Revenue Stabilization Workgroup | City of Seattle   “Are Incumbent City Councilmembers Doomed? The Seattle Times Sure Hopes So!” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Candidates who support police alternatives lead primaries in Washington cities” by Scott Greenstone from KNKX Public Radio   “Harrell's "$27 Million Drug Diversion and Treatment" Plan Would Allow Prosecutions But Add No New Funding” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Seattle City Council adds more protections for app-based workers” by Sarah Grace Taylor from The Seattle Times   “Early signs suggest WA could see a late-summer COVID wave” by Elise Takahama from The Seattle Times   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state, through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Seattle political reporter and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. [00:01:08] Erica Barnett: It's great to be here. [00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back and certainly a number of things to talk about this week. I think we'll start off talking about the City of Burien and the continuing saga - and kind of city crisis - surrounding their handling of people who have been camping because they are homeless. There was an offer of assistance made from the County, there was some work going on - and this is happening with a fractured Council majority and Council minority, usually voting 4-3 in these things. There was a meeting that happened this week. What happened at that meeting and where do things stand now? [00:01:48] Erica Barnett: At the meeting, there were no decisions made, but there was a long discussion of the timeline of what has happened so far. The City Manager presented his version of events in which the City of Burien is held harmless, did nothing wrong, has tried earnestly to come up with alternatives for these folks - and it is a few dozen people - but has just failed or been thwarted at every turn. Several dozen people have been moved from place to place since they were originally swept from a site outside City Hall and the Burien Library. And now they are living at a couple sites - or until this week, were living at a couple sites - in Burien. A group of people were swept out of a site next to a Grocery Outlet and across the street from a Family Dollar by a private company that has gotten a lot of positive attention from the Council majority, which is run by an individual named Kristine Moreland and offers what their website refers to as sweep services - removing people - and this group claims that they have housed folks. What appears to have happened, and I'll be writing more about this later this week - on Friday, probably as you're listening to this, it might be up - what appears to have happened is that they have been relocated into a hotel for a week or so with no apparent plan to do anything beyond that. As I wrote this week, there's no real solution in sight and the County's money is contingent on them finding a location in the City of Burien or getting another city to agree to take Burien's homeless population on. That money could go away. [00:03:20] Crystal Fincher: It's a shame that the money could go away. Something that struck me as unfortunate this entire time is, as you say, this isn't about thousands upon thousands of people. This is actually a situation where it seems like it's possible - working with partners, working with the resources that the County has provided in terms of cash and tiny homes - potentially house most or all of this population, to work through this. This seems like something that is fixable and achievable, and something that Council could be looked at as an example of how to work through this and manage this issue in your city. It appears that they just continue to run from that and double down on these criminalized solutions that have just moved people from literally one lot to another, sometimes across the street from each other. This is in a pretty small area of the city where these encampments and sweeps have taken place. And so just watching the City continue to not try to solve this problem is exceedingly frustrating. [00:04:24] Erica Barnett: To be fair to the City - I try to be fair always, but to take the City's perspective - I can see an argument that a million dollars is really not enough. You can't house people for a million dollars. You can shelter them temporarily. And that is what the County has proposed. But that is a small caveat to the fact that the City, right now, is showing a lot of mistrust for traditional partners that actually do this work and are telling them there is no housing, that it's incredibly hard to house people, and they have to go through a whole process. And they're showing a lot of mistrust of LEAD and REACH, which have been working down in that area for a long time, and showing a sort of almost naive trust of this new organization that is run by one individual who says that she can solve all of their problems and that it's easy. One thing I didn't mention is they put on the table the idea of contracting with this organization run by Kristine Moreland - it's called The More We Love - it's a private group, it's not a nonprofit. So they're talking about spending money on her group because she has said that it is very easy to house people. [00:05:25] Crystal Fincher: Wow. That would be an interesting use of public funds. [00:05:29] Erica Barnett: There's a lot of questions about whether they can actually do this, like where the funds would come from. If they would take away REACH's money, that's federal money - she would need to have a lot more assurances and perhaps a nonprofit, which as I said she does not appear to have, to do that. They've started going down that road. The mayor proposed last week that they start working on looking into contracting with this group. It is very much on the table and could happen or could start to be discussed seriously within the next couple of weeks. [00:05:58] Crystal Fincher: Very interesting. We will continue to follow this, as we have been doing. I also wanted to talk about significant news this week in the City of Seattle, where a revenue workgroup presented options for potential progressive revenue options in the City of Seattle. What happened with this and what options are on the table? [00:06:18] Erica Barnett: This workgroup has been meeting for a while - it consists of folks with the mayor's office, City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda is the co-chair, then some business groups, some labor groups - including the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, which had an interesting reaction this week. But the workgroup eventually came up with a set of policy options - they're saying they are not recommendations - and they considered 63, they narrowed it down to 9. And the top three are the ones that the City could move forward with right away. Those are, in order, increasing or changing the JumpStart payroll expense tax and letting those monies flow into the general fund, implementing a City-level capital gains tax - which the City believes it could do without a ballot initiative or permission from the State Legislature. And then a new tax on CEOs that have a very high ratio of pay compared to the average employee in a company - essentially a surcharge on the JumpStart Tax to companies that have extremely well-paid CEOs. I should mention this is all to close a pending revenue gap in 2025 and beyond of hundreds of millions of dollars. They've got to figure out a way to narrow this gap either by cutting spending, by increasing revenues, or most likely some combination of both. [00:07:39] Crystal Fincher: These are certainly interesting options. You noted that these are not recommendations, they're simply presenting options - which makes me wonder about the coalition that was at the table here, the participants in the workgroup, the elephant in the room of sometimes these workgroups are really just attempts to get the business community on board with a tax. It doesn't look like they accomplished that here. What are the dynamics of the groups who were involved in putting these options together? [00:08:10] Erica Barnett: Yesterday, a member of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce sent out a statement saying - Seattle revenues are at an all-time high and spending is unsustainable - repudiating the idea that we need new taxes and suggesting that the real problem is the City Council is just spending frivolously. The report the revenue stabilization task force put out talks about spending and notes that the amount the City has been spending has been going up roughly in line with inflation and labor costs. There's some mandatory COLAs [cost-of-living adjustments] and pay increases that have happened that have been very necessary to keep folks more in line with the private market to actually keep people working for the City, which has faced problems with hiring just like every other workplace. There isn't necessarily a lot of evidence that the City is spending out of control, at least according to this report that the Chamber itself signed off on, but they have indicated that they're gonna come out hard against it - not clear in what way, but they certainly have sued over other taxes, including the JumpStart Tax in the past. More to come, I'm sure, but they have indicated that they are not on board with these options, which would tax businesses essentially and tax some of their members. [00:09:24] Crystal Fincher: As you mentioned, they opposed the JumpStart Tax, they opposed previous taxes. Here, they frequently act as an organized opposition to taxation, particularly taxation that involves the business community. Lots of people talk about Seattle process and how we will workgroup and task force something to death - that certainly is the case. But when a number of candidates run, or when we've heard in press conferences with the mayor and talking about One Seattle - and if we can just get everyone seated around the table and get everyone talking, surely we can hammer out something and agree and be able to move forward in community and coalition and with buy-in. The problem is that other people are too contentious and they wanna do things without the buy-in of everyone, but I will get everyone together and do that. That's certainly not unique to Bruce Harrell - we heard that from Mayor Ed Murray, from Mayor Jenny Durkan, from several City councilmembers - they just needed to get people together. In another one of these workgroups, they did bring everyone to the table and the same disagreements, the same lack of alignment that was evident before this was put together surfaces now. It's time to make a decision for a lot of people. If everyone doesn't agree to do something, then it's on pause, it just doesn't happen. Or is it going to be moving forward with options that may have the support of the general public? Certainly a number of these options poll well and the candidates who have advanced them are winning most of these elections. Are they willing to move without the support of the business community or potentially setting up another showdown with the business community? That's a question that has yet to be answered. [00:11:10] Erica Barnett: I would not dismiss this necessarily as just another example of Seattle process going nowhere. I think the last revenue stabilization task force, of course it was called something else but, came up with the JumpStart Tax, which is a payroll tax on highly-compensated workers at extremely large employers - that has brought in hundreds of millions of dollars a year and really addressed the revenue shortfalls during COVID. I think that business community aside - and Alex Pedersen, City councilmember who is an ally of the business community, sent out a press release poo-pooing the proposals or the policy ideas - this will probably lead to some action by the council. They have to do something. They are facing a really grave situation. There are other task forces that have met and not really done much in similar situations. The council and the City - the mayor and the council have to pass a balanced budget every year. If they've got a $250 million shortfall in a budget, they've got to address that. Looking at and talking to Teresa Mosqueda, the chair of the committee, one of the co-chairs of this task force, and the Chair of the Finance Committee yesterday, they're looking at those first three options very seriously. There's probably a council majority right now to support one of those options. Depending on how fast they move on this, it could be a new council that may be less friendly. We'll see. They have to do something. I don't see cutting that much of the budget as an option. [00:12:28] Crystal Fincher: The Chamber is staking out the position that the only thing that they are willing to discuss - from their perspective right now - is cuts and not focusing on the revenue-generating options, some of which were considered more progressive than others by many people. So what are the next steps here? [00:12:46] Erica Barnett: Council Central Staff is going to do an analysis of these options, probably - again, with the emphasis on those ones that the council can do on its own. Then there will be policy recommendations and legislation, presumably, to pass some version of one or more of these options. There are six other options, some of which would require the Legislature to pass legislation allowing the City to implement some of these taxes - that's a longer-term strategy that the council says it's going to engage in. The short-term perspective is they're going to start working on this stuff. When it comes to the Chamber, they are not all-powerful - their job is generally to oppose taxes on their members. They did that last time - they lost in the court of public opinion, and they also lost in court - now we have the JumpStart payroll tax. I don't know if that experience is going to make them reluctant to challenge an expansion of that tax or any of these other taxes. They have not been successful so far in preventing taxation to close these revenue shortfalls, to pay for housing and homelessness solutions - their opposition just means the business community is against this. It doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. [00:13:53] Crystal Fincher: That's a very good point. Also want to talk about a piece you did in PubliCola this week as a response to some at The Seattle Times suggesting the three incumbents in Seattle City Council races that are running again - each of whom lead their race, two of whom with over 50% of the vote - are somehow not safe. Did that pass the smell test? [00:14:18] Erica Barnett: They presented a theory in this editorial - described as a hopeful theory on their part - that the incumbents are in trouble if they end up with less than 55%. They said that this was just the general consensus of election watchers. I don't know - I'm an election watcher, you're an election watcher - this is not my consensus. And nor, when I look back at the numbers, is it reflected in reality. An incumbent might have a somewhat tough race if they are under 50% of the vote in the primary. There's just so many reasons - among which is, as you said, they're all above 50% now. The primary electorate tends to be more conservative. The incumbents that The Seattle Times wants to defeat are all more progressive than their opponents. The primary election turnout was incredibly low. Some of these folks in the races with lots and lots of candidates where there wasn't an incumbent were winning by a few hundred votes. The Times really is hopeful they will be able to finally rid themselves of candidates, or of City councilmembers like Tammy Morales, who is very much leading her Seattle Times-endorsed opponent, Tanya Woo, Dan Strauss, who's leading Pete Hanning. And Andrew Lewis, who actually is looking the weakest right now - he is under 50%. His opponent, Bob Kettle, is unlikely to get a bunch of business community backing in District 7, which includes downtown. All the incumbents are looking strong right now. [00:15:41] Crystal Fincher: That seems to be the consensus from the election watchers I'm aware of, many of whom are actively involved in several elections. Incumbents just don't lose from this position. We rarely, if ever, see that. It's rare to see, even in open seats, for people to finish over 50% and then not win, which doesn't mean that - barring scandal or something wild happening, there are a lot of unknowns - to suggest that this indicates trouble is really stretching it. We will continue to follow those elections. We just did a Post-Primary recap show, which we will also be releasing on the podcast - you can hear more about our thoughts on those. [00:16:22] Erica Barnett: The one example I was able to find in history where it came close to what The Times was saying was Richard Conlin, who I think ended up under 50% in his primary against Kshama Sawant. And Sawant won by a very narrow margin in her first election. It does not illustrate The Times's point because Sawant is obviously far to the left of Richard Conlin, who was a standard moderate Democrat liberal. They really just don't have any examples to back up these kind of sweeping conclusions that they're making. [00:16:51] Crystal Fincher: They don't. They're having a challenge reconciling the results of the race. They were setting it up, from an editorial perspective, that Seattleites are really unhappy with the council and that unhappiness meant they wanted a change and more moderate candidates, they were unhappy with the direction of the City. I've talked about several times - the City doesn't necessarily have a direction - you have a mayor who is more moderate, you have some councilmembers who are more progressive, others who are more moderate depending on the day of the week. You need to get into an examination of the issues and where Seattle voters generally are on issues is more progressive than what The Times usually articulates. It'll be interesting to see how they evaluate these races and their endorsed candidates and their chances. What do voters really expect to see? What do they not want to see? What do they find unacceptable? Questions that oftentimes are left unexamined by seemingly the parties who could do well to examine them the most. Also want to talk this week about an article that actually talked about candidates who support police alternatives are leading primaries, getting through to the general election. Some of those candidates really want to focus on those alternatives. Many of them want those alternatives in addition to police or to be able to dispatch a more appropriate response - whether it's a behavioral health crisis, someone dealing with substance use disorder, homelessness - dispatching responders who may not be armed police, but who are equipped to handle the problem at hand, which oftentimes even police will tell you they are not the best equipped to handle things that are not of a criminal nature. What did this article find? [00:18:27] Erica Barnett: People are interested in alternatives to police. There has been a lot made of the idea that there is this backlash to "Defund the Police." The City of Seattle did not defund the police. In 2020, there was a real movement for change that organized under that name. They were advocating for funding alternatives and using some of the money that is currently used for armed police officers. When you frame it in a way that does not use those words - "defund the police" - that is what people want. I do not cover cities outside Seattle, which this article focused on, but I think that is definitely what we've seen in Seattle where folks who have said they would ensure that there are 5-minute response times to 911 calls, like Maritza Rivera in District 4, or folks who have run on an expand-the-police platform, like Olga Sagan, who was a primary contender against Andrew Lewis in District 7, and I think ended up with 19% of the vote and is out. Those folks did not fare as well as people who said - I want to fund alternatives and come up with a way to respond to crisis calls, for example, without sending out cops. [00:19:35] Crystal Fincher: Voters do want to be safer and feel safe. They recognize that conversation about public safety and how we keep people safe is a lot bigger than just policing. If you listen to elected officials speak or you listen to campaign rhetoric, you would think it was either we invest in hiring a ton more cops and keep doing that, or we do nothing and lawlessness reigns. No one wants lawlessness to reign. No one is proposing to do nothing. There are alternative solutions, there are other responses, there are cities implementing this. One of the things in this article is that this is not just a Seattle phenomenon. In fact, many other cities - Bellingham, Spokane, Tacoma - other cities around the region who are moving forward with this and who have candidates really wanting to examine how to best keep people safe and prevent crime in addition to responding to it, taking a more comprehensive look at how do we address all of these issues. It's another signal that voters want to hear more comprehensive plans for how people plan to keep the community safe, want to use more tools at folks' disposal. And I hope candidates see that and recognize that and come with some real serious proposals to help their communities become safer. [00:20:54] Erica Barnett: I think too, it speaks to some failures of the media - and we're talking about The Seattle Times - but broadly the debate about policing has been misrepresented as defund the police versus public safety. Everybody wants to feel safe in their communities. And the people who have advocated for reforms and for funding other alternatives are just as interested in public safety and community safety as "Refund the Police" or "Overfund the Police" crowd. They clearly outnumber that crowd. There are a lot of nuances within that first group of folks who want community safety, but would like to see alternatives. It is much larger than just the police can and should do everything alternative. [00:21:37] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Also want to talk about something that you covered that we didn't get to last week because of all the election news, but I think is important to talk about since we are trying to deal with issues like drug addiction, substance use disorder - this may fall underneath an alternate response. But the City of Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell announced $27 million for drug diversion and treatment options as a new attempt to implement the drug prosecution legislation that previously failed on the council. What is he actually proposing? [00:22:12] Erica Barnett: The coverage of this was so frustrating to me, including in outlets that I think ordinarily do a very good job of breaking stuff like this down. I did write about the $27 million and I asked - What is this $27 million? - because it's not in the legislation. The Seattle Times said that it was in the legislation - that is not true. The legislation itself essentially just reintroduces the drug criminalization ordinance, which would allow Ann Davison, the City Attorney, to start prosecuting drug users and adds a phrasing that says the police department must adopt a policy in the future that prioritizes diversion when people are arrested for drugs. $27 million was a separate announcement that Harrell made as part of announcing this legislation. And what it is, in fact, is $7 million in underspending, so money that the City failed to spend in previous years, will be put forward to some kind of capital investment. So like a building - unclear what that will be, but it'll have something to do with treatment. So very vague, but $7 million in money that the City has left over. The other $20 million is funding from the two opioid settlements with the companies that the Attorney General of the State of Washington secured earlier this year - that $20 million trickles into the City of Seattle over 18 years. The rate of inflation being what it is - in 2034 or 2035, $1 million is not gonna buy a lot. It doesn't buy a lot now. It's really overstating the case to say that this is $27 million. It's two different kinds of money - one is this tiny trickle of a little bit of money that's gonna come in every year for the next 18 years. [00:23:49] Crystal Fincher: When I first saw that announced, my initial questions were - Where is this money coming from? We saw something similar to this back with the Compassion Seattle Initiative - okay, we tried to advance some legislation, it failed. So let's add some money to it to make it seem compassionate, that nods to the things that actually do have broad public support. It's money that is in other buckets that we're transitioning to this bucket, and it's looking big, but we're gonna be spending it over a long period of time - so it's not really an investment of a rounding error over what we're doing right now. Certainly looking at the scale of the problem - doesn't seem like it has a chance of doing much to meaningfully impact that at all. In fact, it seems like it might be an inefficient way to spend this money. Maybe this would be an area where you could look at what would function more effectively. But it seems like it's acceptable, with policy that we've seen coming out of this mayor's office, to cobble together these kinds of funds and announce it as if it's - Hey, we're making a significant investment here. Look at the details and they're underwhelming. I hope that there is more to the plan than this. [00:25:05] Erica Barnett: I should correct myself on that $7 million - it's actually not probably gonna be spent on new buildings. The mayor spokesman told me that it'll provide capital funding to prepare existing facilities to provide care and treatment services for substance use disorders. Again, very vague - not a lot of money spread over, potentially, a lot of different facilities. And as we discussed, the City has this huge looming revenue shortfall. They don't have a lot of money. They don't have $27 million to put into anything new. And so I think this speaks to the fact that we are actually going to address the problem just of opioid addiction. It is going to cost a lot of money and it would require actual new funding. It's not something that the City is generally responsible for - public health is the responsibility of the County primarily. The City is out here claiming to have the solutions in hand and it's really incumbent on reporters and just on the public to be aware of what this really means, which is not a whole lot. [00:26:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it will be interesting to see how this lands - with the council taking this up, where this is gonna go. I would love to see significant funding put in this and enough where it looks like it could make a difference in the area. We'll see how this shakes out. Also wanna talk about a positive thing - I think to many people, myself included - that happened this week and that is the passage of new protections for app-based workers in the City of Seattle. What did this legislation do? [00:26:32] Erica Barnett: Yeah, the City has been working for months, it feels like years, on legislation to help protect app-based workers - folks like Uber drivers, grocery delivery app workers - from being deactivated in the apps and effectively being unable to earn a living. The workers have argued they are subject to unfair deactivation by companies, retaliatory deactivation, this sort of thing. The legislation would say they have a right to appeal if they are deactivated. It also sets out some guidelines for deactivation. It is a first step toward protecting folks who are working as "gig workers," who have few labor protections. It's not a lot different than being a freelance writer or a contractor, but with low hourly pay and without the protections that you have being an employee of one of these companies. It's a BS job designation, but the gig economy operates on workers who have very few protections, very low pay, and has insisted that their workers are not employees because that would afford them protections that most people with jobs have. City of Seattle is taking steps to try to give them some of those protections, although they're still not employees and still don't have the protections that they deserve as members of the labor force. [00:27:50] Crystal Fincher: An important element here is how these platforms and gig work companies advertise themselves to people who could work on their platforms. They do signal - Hey, this is a way to achieve financial stability. This is almost like building your own business or a new way to have more freedom, yet still be able to pay your bills and live the life that you want. But the way that you could get kicked off of these platforms could be completely arbitrary with no recourse. And as you said, this is really about having a way to appeal these decisions that sometimes are made without the involvement of any person - some algorithm determines that something didn't go well and it could get that wrong. We see plenty of times where automated decisions, whether it's an algorithm or AI, do not make the just decision. And having someone's livelihood that depends on that should come with more protections, more assurances, or at least a consistent process that could be followed. So I am happy to see this pass. This is continuing to grow and a really substantial area of our economy and a lot of our neighbors rely on this kind of income - having that be more predictable and stable with more of a process for people to understand how it works and how they can operate within it is a positive thing. [00:29:11] Erica Barnett: Firing a writer because of negative comments in the comments section of a blog - the customer is not always right - and in a normal job, if you've got a complaint from a customer, you would have the opportunity to state your case to your employer. In this case, as you said, it's determined by algorithms that are not transparent. You really have no recourse. [00:29:29] Crystal Fincher: Legislation was crafted with the input of these app companies too. I think Lisa Herbold was quoted as saying, she made some modifications to make sure - after hearing feedback from these companies - to do all that they could to make sure that they were being explicit about action taken to protect people's safety or those kinds of urgent situations. This is really getting at the element of people being able to understand the rules and the processes they have to adhere to. And finally this week, I wanna talk about a story that maybe a lot of people are seeing anecdotally. We've been seeing news across the country about wastewater detection of COVID increasing. It looks like we are going to see a late-summer COVID wave here in Washington state. What's going on with the 'VID? [00:30:21] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I know tons of people who've gotten COVID recently. It's very alarming. People are slacking off, or have been slacking off for at least a year or so, with COVID thinking that it's over, the pandemic emergency being declared over and people aren't wearing masks. There's obviously a surge. I read a really alarming story about the impacts of long COVID, which we really have yet to reckon with. It was a story about just how much it affects your cardiovascular health and the rate of heart attacks going up in younger people. It's very alarming and it's still a very serious disease - even if you aren't showing symptoms, even if you're showing mild symptoms, it's very scary. I traveled recently and I was guilty of not wearing my mask as much as I probably should have. And I was lucky I didn't get COVID, but it's still coming for all of us. [00:31:09] Crystal Fincher: It is still coming for all of us. I did travel recently, was masked during travel. Doesn't happen to everyone, but a significant percentage of people who have mild initial infection can come with all of these side effects. We just don't know yet. This COVID has not been around long enough to know what the long-term impacts are. My biggest learnings during COVID is how viruses operate overall and how it's not unusual for a wide variety of viruses to be an initial flu-like illness, like how HPV is tied to cervical cancer. I'm certainly not an MD - look this up yourself, follow guidance. It does seem like we should be more cautious about transmitting viruses overall, COVID or not. If wearing a mask can keep me from having that, I think that's a positive thing. We need to continue to focus on responses that make shared spaces safer, looking at ventilation and air filtration and treatment. I hope those conversations are still ongoing in policy circles - certainly they're important. It's unfortunate that we have relaxed masking in places where people don't have a choice to be, like on public transit or in healthcare settings, where they're more likely to see more sick people and the people who are there are more likely to be vulnerable. You can't not go to the doctors when you need help or you're relying on treatment. [00:32:33] Erica Barnett: One reason I am less vulnerable is because I work from home. The City is currently still debating whether to and how much to force people to come back into work at the City of Seattle. Amazon - I saw a story today that they are monitoring people using their badge swipe-ins to police whether people are following their work-from-the-office mandates. There's so many benefits to letting people work from home. I find it very discouraging that part of the debate seems to have been settled in favor of the you-must-work-at-the-office crowd. It is protective to be at home and not be out in crowds of people who may be less cautious and getting you sick. [00:33:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I'm definitely a proponent of working from home - I am doing that as we speak - that's a privilege I have that a lot of people don't have. If you do come down with something, you can test for whether it's COVID or anything else. And employers making sure that they are giving their employees leave, which is a big problem, particularly in service industries. And with that, I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, August 11th, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng, who is incredible and amazing and talented. Our insightful cohost today is Seattle political reporter and Editor of PubliCola, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter at @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me on all platforms @finchfrii, that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical interview shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, please leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They run through results from Tuesday's primary election for Seattle City Council, Seattle School Board & King County Council, and then take a look at Tacoma City Council, Spokane City elections, and the recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from the Richland School Board. The show concludes with reflection on the influence of editorial boards and their endorsements, particularly those of The Stranger. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources “RE-AIR: The Big Waterfront Bamboozle with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank” from Hacks & Wonks   “Backlash to City Council incumbents doesn't materialize in primary” by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Seattle Public Schools primary election results 2023” by Dahlia Bazzaz and Monica Velez from The Seattle Times   “3 things we learned from the Pierce County primary, from council races to tax measures” by Adam Lynn from The News Tribune   “Voters favor recall of gubernatorial candidate Semi Bird from school board” by Jerry Cornfield from Washington State Standard   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, we re-aired an episode highlighting how the leaders we choose make consequential decisions that affect us all. Check out my conversation with Mike McGinn and Robert Cruickshank about how the SR 99 tunnel and today's Seattle waterfront came about. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. Hey! [00:01:26] Robert Cruickshank: Thank you for having me on again, Crystal - excited to talk about election results this week. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and we have a number to talk about. These have been very eagerly awaited results - lots of candidates and contenders, especially with the Seattle City Council elections - 45 candidates all whittled down now to two in each race going into the general election. We should probably go through the results here - District 1 and going through - what did we see and what did you think? [00:01:58] Robert Cruickshank: There are some trends you'll see as we look through these races and it's good to start district by district. And in West Seattle, in District 1, one of the trends you see is that some of the establishment candidates, the candidates Bruce Harrell's side, is really putting kind of anemic performances. You look at Rob Saka in West Seattle, who's barely ahead of Phil Tavel who's run for office several times before. And Maren Costa, the much more progressive candidate, labor candidate - is the one of the two women who was fired by Amazon for doing climate organizing before the pandemic - so she's a strong climate champion, Stranger-endorsed candidate. Maren Costa is in the low 30s and will probably go higher as more ballots come in this week. But Rob Saka is one of the two candidates who benefited from a independent expenditure by right-wing billionaires and corporate donors. The reason they targeted him in this race and Maritza Rivera in District 4, which we'll talk about in a moment, is they knew that those two candidates were struggling and needed that huge influx of cash to help convince voters to support them and not - maybe in this case - Phil Tavel over Maren Costa. So Rob Saka at 25% or so right now - it's not really a strong showing. Maren Costa in the low 30s - your progressive candidate, you'd like to be a little bit higher - she's in a great position right now. And one of the things you're seeing in this race - and you will see in the others - is in addition to the fact that the establishment candidates did worse than expected, in addition to incumbents doing well, you're also starting to see that a number of progressive candidates are surviving this supposed backlash that never actually happened. If you talk to or listen to Brandi Kruse, or watch KOMO, or read some of the more unhinged Seattle Times editorials, you would have assumed that coming into this election, there's going to be a massive backlash favoring genuinely right-wing candidates who really want to just crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness - that just didn't happen. What I see in District 1, and you'll see in all these other races, is a reversion to pre-pandemic politics between corporate centrists and progressive candidates. That's where you're starting to see the things shake out - you're not having right-wing candidates like Ann Davison getting traction. And candidates on the left, there weren't very many of them this year - had a little bit of traction, we'll see, in District 5, but otherwise it wasn't really a factor. So I think you're coming back to pre-pandemic politics where a progressive candidate like Maren Costa can do well in West Seattle. If you remember in 2015, when we first went to districts, the race in West Seattle was very close - Lisa Herbold only won by about 30 votes. Looking at the numbers in District 1 so far, I would not be surprised to see a very close race between Maren Costa and Rob Saka, but Rob Saka is not the strong candidate that his backers expected. And Maren Costa has a lot of momentum and energy behind her - in West Seattle, you're seeing voters responding to the message that she's giving. [00:05:06] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree with that. I also found it surprising to see how anemic the performance by some of those establishment moderate candidates - not only did they need that conservative PAC money to get through, but they were leading in fundraising by quite a significant bit - Rob Saka was far ahead of others in terms of fundraising, we saw the same in some other districts. So it was really interesting - it's hard to finish poorly in a primary or to not run away with the lead, really, in a primary when you have a significant fundraising lead - especially when you have additional money coming in. Seattle voters are starting to get a little wiser - still the challenge is there - but starting to get a little wiser at looking at whose donors are there and do those donors indicate how they're going to vote? Looks like in the history of Seattle politics - maybe drawing some conclusions on that. I think there are interesting conversations about the, whether this is a change election or stay the course election, whether people want something different or the same. And I think that's a more complicated answer than just change or different. One, we don't have a uniform city council. There's a range of positions and perspectives on the council, so to try and characterize it as "this progressive council" isn't necessarily correct. And now we're going to have a lot of turnover, we're going to see what this new composition is going to be, but it's hard to characterize that. And then you have the mayor on the other side - who is definitely a moderate, not a progressive there - and so the mayor is still dictating a lot of the policy in the city. Even some things that have been funded by the council, direction that has been moved has not been taken action on by the mayor. Saying that you want to stay the course really feels like a more moderate course these days, especially when looking at the approaches to public safety with a lot of criminalization of poverty - when you talk about homelessness and the outsize focus on sweeps, instead of trying to house people and connect them to services consistently. So that whole conversation is always interesting to me and feels a little bit reductive, a little too simplistic for what is actually going on. But we should probably talk about some of the other races, too. What did you see in District 2 with Tammy Morales and Tanya Woo, along with kind of an also-ran - another candidate who I don't think topped 5% - but that is a closer race than some of the others appear to be on their face, although there were a lot fewer candidates in this race. [00:07:34] Robert Cruickshank: Again, we can think back to 2015 where Tammy Morales nearly beat the incumbent Bruce Harrell, losing by a little less than 500 votes. She won by a larger margin when the seat was open after Harrell stepped down in 2019. A lot of the sort of conventional wisdom from the establishment class is that Morales was in real trouble, but she's hovering around 50% right now. Tanya Woo's close - it'll be a close election in the fall, but you have to say that Morales has the advantage here. Incumbency does matter. We need to look at the maps, but I know that there's been a lot of frustration in the Chinatown International District with Morales and with City Hall more generally, but the rest of District 2 seems to still have confidence in Tammy Morales' leadership, and still willing to send her back to City Hall for a second term. The exception to that was in noticing that the closer I get to Lake Washington, the Tanya Woo signs pop up a lot more. The closer I get to Rainier and MLK, more Tammy Morales signs. That's a typical split in terms of the electorate in the South End, and I think it favors Morales. She's done a great job on a lot of issues facing the community, she's been there for the community. Tanya Woo is running a strong campaign - Woo is not a right-wing candidate, Woo is much more of a center-left candidate who is really close to the Harrell administration. And again, it'll be a close race. If you're looking for a backlash, if you're looking for a rejection of a progressive city council, you are not seeing it in District 2. Morales, I think, has the advantage here going into November. [00:09:01] Crystal Fincher: I would agree. Now, District 3, coming on the heels of our announced departure of Councilmember Kshama Sawant from the council, there's going to be a new councilmember here. This is an open-seat race. We see Joy Hollingsworth and Alex Hudson making it through to the general election. What's your take on this? [00:09:22] Robert Cruickshank: Joy Hollingsworth has probably hit her ceiling - she's pulling around 40% right now. If you look back - ever since we went to districts in 2015, obviously being on the ballot changes the dynamics - you can get some pretty liberal people who are - I don't know if I like the socialism, 'cause they could get close. And so there's at least, you would assume, 40 to 45% for a more centrist candidate even in District 3, but not much beyond that. And what you're seeing is that as more ballots come in, Alex Hudson's numbers are growing, and there are quite a few other really good candidates in that race who also split the progressive vote. Hudson will almost certainly unite that progressive vote. I think very few of those voters are going to go from someone like Andrew Ashiofu or Ry Armstrong or Alex Cooley over to Joy Hollingsworth - a few might. But I think Alex Hudson is going to have the advantage here going in to the November election as well. [00:10:15] Crystal Fincher: This is an interesting race. There are eight candidates in this race, one - so very, very crowded race - number of progressive candidates in here. So there definitely was some splitting going on. This is a bit different than some of the open seat races that we see where oftentimes there is a candidate who feels like they're carrying on the same direction or philosophy or policy stance as the incumbent, but the incumbent decided not to go anymore. And so there're oftentimes as well, the choice of maintaining the same kind of policy direction or going different. I don't think that's the case here. And also to your point that Kshama Sawant not being in this race - yes, some people see the socialism in question, but Kshama had the ability to motivate a whole entire squad of volunteers that blanketed that district. And so looking at the absolutely impressive ground game - we've talked about it before on the program - lots to learn from for Democrats looking at that and others at how to expand the electorate and really get people to turn out to vote is something that Kshama and her campaign did extremely well. There's a different dynamic here, and it's going to be interesting to see if one of these candidates can motivate and galvanize younger people to a degree that comes close to what Kshama did. It looks like that was not the case in the primary, probably - we're still fairly early in the returns, but turnout looks concerning, especially among younger people here. So the entire dynamic of that race in that district just feels a lot more different than some of the other ones. And so this is going to be an interesting one to follow. [00:11:50] Robert Cruickshank: I agree - you're right to point to Sawant's just political genius. Sawant is one of the most effective candidates, campaigners, and politicians we see in the City in a long, long time. She has a really strong ability to speak to a broad progressive base in Capitol Hill. And in District 3, she speaks well to renters and people who are lower wage workers - they know she has their back. Her campaign operation is one of the best the City has had. Talking to people who live in District 3 - they would report every time Sawant's on the ballot, they had Sawant organizers at their doors almost every day until they turned in their ballots. They got the work done. They were really good at that. And that is a infrastructure that is unique to Sawant. Sawant always wanted to turn that into a movement, into an organization - was never quite able to. And so none of the other candidates have built that yet. As you point out with turnout, they're going to need to. Alex Hudson, looking like the more progressive candidate in this race, is going to have to figure out how to build something close to what Sawant had without having the sort of once-in-a-generation political charisma and skills that Sawant had. Now, Hudson is a great candidate. Hudson has a lot of experience at City Hall, knows the policy well. But to actually win the election, they're gonna have to figure out how to build some of that momentum and movement going for her to make sure that she wins. My guess is Hudson probably gets around 53% in November, but she's gonna have to work hard for it. [00:13:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, she's gonna have to work hard for it. I will say a couple things. One, just on legacy, I guess, moving forward - absolutely galvanized the public. I have seen several people say - Out of everyone, I know that I can count on Sawant to represent my interests. That's important. If you have a voter saying that, they are a loyal voter - unless you do something completely out of character, they're gonna be there for you like you've been there for them. There are questions about how well Sawant worked with her colleagues. There's ongoing debate about leading on an issue and pushing for progress versus how much to try and work with, potentially compromise with colleagues. And Sawant was not one who led with compromise. And that is something that a lot of people admired. I've said over and over again that a lot of times, especially speaking with more moderate people, they seem to always view Sawant's election as a fluke almost - Oh, some other condition, some other thing helped Sawant get in and that's the only reason why - which I think is why you saw so much energy around the recall elections and her re-elections. But she represents that district - there is no getting around - the people voted for her on purpose. She's a good example of looking at some people in some positions and saying - Hey, just move forward. Obviously $15 an hour minimum wage started in SeaTac, but then Kshama certainly picked up that mantle for Seattle and said - We need to get this done. Probably without her very direct and overt support for that, $15 an hour does not happen in Seattle when it did, how it did. If you follow me online, I often ask for mail or feedback from people in different districts. And I will say I had a couple people in District 3 who consistently showed me the mail that they receive - a couple of them in some harder to find places, harder to canvass places who don't get many canvassers - even with Sawant, they definitely did, but not as much as some of the other ones. Alex Hudson's campaign team made it there to drop off lit, made it there to knock on some doors. So that was encouraging. I'm always a big fan of candidates getting on those doors, talking to their constituents, their neighbors directly. Alex Hudson did a better job of that in the primary. And so hopefully that is something that can be built on and expanded upon. Want to talk about District 4, which is another interesting result. We had, in this race, a different dynamic where there was one clear progressive candidate and then a number of different shades of moderate to conservative candidates. This race even featured a self-described climate skeptic - just a number of different perspectives on the center to the right. And here we had Ron Davis with a pretty strong finish, considering the split in this race - we're sitting right about 42% right now - and as we record this on Thursday morning. And then Ken Wilson not making it through the primary, Maritza Rivera making it through - both of those fundraised pretty significantly. Maritza, another recipient of some PAC support. So looking at this race, how do you see the primary? And then how do you see the general shaping up between Ron Davis and Maritza Rivera? [00:16:31] Robert Cruickshank: The corporate PAC for Rivera was key because I think there's recognition that without it, Ken Wilson probably would have come in second. Wilson had a strong base of support - he raised, I think, the most Democracy Vouchers in the city, Ron Davis quickly caught up. Wilson had a genuine popular base of support among the NIMBYs and right wingers in District 4, which there are many. That's why you needed the right wing billionaires and corporate CEOs to come in and help drag Rivera up into second place. Going into the fall, I wanna acknowledge that there are people out there who take a more skeptical view of what this means for progressives - like Erica Barnett, for example - arguing that this isn't actually that great for progressives, they're getting into the upper 30s, low 40s, but things could unite against them in the fall. And we can look back at 2021 and say - Yeah, that's what happened in the mayor's race. I was looking at the numbers earlier this morning. After all is said and done in the August 2021 primary, Bruce Harrell had 34%, Lorena González had 32%. It looked like it was a real horse race. It turned out that was almost González's ceiling - she got, obviously, a little bit more than that, closer to 40%, but not quite. And Harrell scooped up almost everything else. I don't think that's gonna happen in District 4 and I don't think it's gonna happen elsewhere. For a few reasons - one, I think the mayor's race is a unique animal - citywide. I also think 2021 was a difficult moment for progressives in Seattle - they hadn't quite figured out how to handle this backlash to defund, concerns about crime and homelessness. Candidates are starting to figure that out a lot better. So Ron Davis is a very smart campaigner. He has really sensible answers on the issues that resonate even with more older conservative voters. He's got a real upside. I also think there are a non-zero number of Ken Wilson voters who might go over to Ron. Ken sent out a really interesting mailer in the last week of the election with a bunch of check marks about different positions - designed to contrast Ken with Rivera, but a lot of the check marks are for Ron as well. And what Ken's campaign was saying is that Rivera is the insider - she's been inside City Hall for several years, corporate backing, establishment backing. Ron doesn't have that. And I think a lot of Wilson voters will see in Ron someone who's also not of the establishment. I wouldn't want to overstate that, but a wider electorate in the fall, Davis getting a few votes here and there from Wilson - he's got a shot at winning. [00:18:58] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. And the way these votes consolidate is probably going to matter in this race - looking at how they stack up, this is going to be a competitive race. This is not one where the primary winner is automatically going to be the general election winner. Overall, looking at just how this district has trended over the past decade - the district is unquestionably moving left, which is really interesting. This is one of the districts that had been reliably moderate to conservative for a long time. That's not the case - we would not have seen even over about 42% right now - this result would not have happened half a decade back. This is just a different place. I think that is what's informed some of the odd policy choices of people like Gerry Pollet, who has received a lot of backlash, but I think he was counting on the composition of the district as it used to be and not as it is today. There were rumors of him potentially getting in the city council race - there weren't rumors, they were confirmed, I think, by someone close to him. Looking at it, he no longer really fits the district or provided a contrast that people felt comfortable moving to to support a candidacy. So it's going to be also interesting to see how things progress with him after considering and not deciding to do local stuff and going there. But this will be an interesting race. This is going to be one where we might see more of a focus and highlighting on the role of these donors, the role of the corporate support, how close Maritza is to the current administration. If people want a change, that really doesn't seem to include Maritza at all. She would be the last person you'd vote for if you wanted a change. So this is going to be a really interesting race to follow. [00:20:45] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and it's an interesting race also because it is a chance for progressives to pick up a seat on the City Council. The assumption, as we talked about going into this election from the conventional wisdom centrist pundit classes, that progressives are going to get dealt a pretty harsh blow here - these results suggest that's not necessarily going to happen. And in fact - Ron running a really strong campaign - he could flip that seat for progressives. He's a really sensible candidate for that district as well. He's a dad in his early forties. He's run a small business. He's been active in his neighborhood association. He knows the district well. He's a really good fit there. A lot of those voters, as you've said, are not much more overtly conservative, Pollet, Alex Pedersen types. They're there, clearly. But a lot of younger families are going to be there - ready to vote in November. And of course, in November, which you don't have in August, is a UW student body that is on campus - that's something that is in Ron's back pocket that can really give him a significant boost in the November election. [00:21:48] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. We could change when we have this primary. We could change how we have this primary, frankly, and change our style of voting. We can move to even-year elections as the county has done and has voted to do. Why are we voting in August when people are away for the summer, when younger people are gone? [00:22:09] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, to move up to where I live in District 5 - talking about what happened here - those changes would have made a huge difference. Ranked choice voting here would have gone a long way because we had quite an interesting field that didn't necessarily match what you see elsewhere. There isn't an obvious centrist-Harrell candidate. Cathy Moore seems closest to that, but she's also not the City Hall insider. Cathy is a much more traditionally liberal candidate, someone who sits between progressive and center - got around 30-something percent of the vote, not a huge showing. There were a number of progressive to genuinely left-wing candidates up here in the far northern reaches of Seattle, which 10 years ago is considered one of the most conservative parts of the city. We're seeing that's not necessarily the case - you have Tye Reed, who jumped in almost at the end of filing, presenting a very left-wing perspective. Christiana ObeySumner jumping in - they present a also-left perspective and appear to be the second place candidate - backed by, of course, a Stranger endorsement - narrowly edging out Nilu Jenks, who is a much more traditional progressive candidate running strong on climate issues. Nilu's campaign fell just short. I know that a lot of Nilu supporters are really frustrated at the way the Stranger handled this race. It is an example of where a ranked choice system, or having this in an even-numbered year, or having the primary at another time rather than at the dead of summer, could have produced a really interesting and fruitful conversation between these different candidates and campaigns about what it means to be progressive, especially up here in a part of the city that is often overlooked or neglected. I know the South End really has a pretty significant, legitimate beef on that front - but so does Lake City, so does Broadview, so does the far northern reaches of Aurora Avenue once you get past Green Lake. So it's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out here. I don't think that the race between Moore and ObeySumner is going to resemble races in other parts of the city. They're much more interesting and unpredictable candidates. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: It's too close to officially call right now, as of pre-drop on Thursday - we have Christiana ObeySumner at 22.1% and Nilu Jenks at 19%. It's hard to see this shift change. It's hard - as I'm looking at it, what I bet - that Christiana's the one that makes it through, I'd say that's likely. Would I say it's absolutely conclusive, we don't need to consider any more drops? No. But odds are, with the way that votes typically shake out, that this isn't going to change radically. There are a few different left candidates. It's not like there's consolidation to just one candidate. And because Christiana also got The Stranger endorsement, which a lot of late voters are relying more heavily on - they already don't have a formed opinion - so it's hard to see the vote shifting away from Christiana. As we look at this race in District 6, which does have an incumbent, Dan Strauss, who is over 50% - 50.7% right now, followed by Pete Hanning at 30%. This is another one where the moderates didn't seem to get a great bang for their buck. [00:25:17] Robert Cruickshank: And this is a race where it's clear that - one, the power of incumbency still matters. And two, the supposed backlash to the progressive city council is overstated. Dan Strauss getting above 50% is a big deal. He voted, I think, once for defunding the police in the summer of 2020, and then fairly quickly walked that back. But that didn't stop his opponents from sending a bunch of mailers to houses in District 6, explaining that Dan Strauss had voted to defund the police. That doesn't appear to have hurt him at all. The fact you have Pete Hanning, who is head of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, small business guy - you would think that he would be a ideal candidate for that part of the city. It turns out he's not. He's languishing there at 30%. Strauss is above 50% before even more progressive ballot drops happen on Thursday afternoon and Friday afternoon in the dead of August summer. We're learning a couple things here - not just the power of incumbency, not just the fact the right wing backlash doesn't exist - we're also learning that Ballard and Fremont are more progressive than people assumed. It'll be interesting to see the map of where these votes come in. The Magnolia portions of the district, anything on the water, on the Sound, probably voted for Hanning or other candidates like that. Where the population base is - in Ballard, up to Greenwood, Fremont - I bet they're probably voting for Dan Strauss. And I think it is a endorsement of Strauss's attempt to straddle the fence. He gets a lot of criticism, I think justifiably so, for the way he flip-flops often. But appears to be working for Dan Strauss. Progressives have a bit of work cut out for us. I posted about this on Twitter - got a lot of people responding to me that Strauss is not a progressive. I would agree with that, but he's willing to listen to and vote for progressives if we organize him correctly. So I see it as an opportunity here. And also just the fact that the right-wing backlash didn't show up in this district at all is, I think, a big win. And I think it's a significant sign going forward that progressives have more of an opportunity than we thought. This race in particular reminds me of 2022. At the state level and especially the federal level - going into the November election, there was a lot of concern, worry, even predictions of doom that the Democrats were just gonna get wiped out. That didn't happen at the state level. In fact, Democrats picked up seats. At the federal level, barring a meltdown of the Democratic Party in New York State, Democrats could have held onto the House. They did hold onto the Senate. And I think you're seeing something similar here - that this assumption, I think, especially from the establishment media and that pundit class that - Oh, this is a center-right country, maybe a centrist city - it's not true. There is more support for a progressive agenda in the city, and in this country than is assumed. I think progressives need to internalize that and realize we have real opportunities here to move forward. And if we're making sure that we're listening to what voters are saying and bringing them along with us. [00:28:09] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point. A lot of times people talk about - People are dissatisfied with the council, people think things are on the wrong track. Sometimes we use things like progressive and moderate - these broad labels - as a shorthand for policy. If you look at policy in practice in Seattle, it's hard to call a lot of it progressive on the issues that have been plaguing Seattle the most - on public safety, on homelessness, on issues of inequality. Policy has not been what progressives would call progressive. Moderates love to call things progressive. Moderates are extremely emotionally invested in being called progressive. And what we've seen is policy passed by those moderates with messaging calling it progressive - we've seen sweep after sweep after sweep, hot spot-focused policing, which doesn't seem to accomplish much in the longterm. And so when we just ask - Are you satisfied? And someone says - No. Somehow it's always characterized as - Well, people don't like progressive policy and they want something different. Or we're characterizing the council as progressive, which is not a clean label for that council - it's a lot more varied than that. And saying - Clearly, they want more moderate policy. And that's not true, especially in the City of Seattle - some people want to go to actual progressive policy and are thinking that - Okay, I hear this rhetoric, but I'm not seeing it in practice. I want what they talked about. I want what they're selling. That's also why you see so many candidates - who people who aren't moderate would call moderate, who progressives would call moderate - mirroring progressive messaging. Even though they're getting support from some really right-wing people, some people who traditionally support Republicans, are very opposed to taxation. Still, if you look at their mailers, if you look at different things - I'm a progressive champion. I believe in progressive policy. Sara Nelson ran on police reform. And you can see she was more aligned with her donors and different things - that's a lesson that Seattle is starting to learn. But just because there are some progressives on the council, a couple of progressives on the council, just because there's a label calling it that by people who most do not consider to be progressives - that's just a messaging trick. You have to follow up on that question - Why are you dissatisfied? Those answers are a lot more interesting and a lot more informative about why people are voting the way they are and why the reception to different councilmembers is the way that it is. [00:30:36] Robert Cruickshank: That's right. And I think it is going to be interesting to see who actually makes it onto the council because the fence sitters - we talked about one, Dan Strauss, we'll talk about the other, Andrew Lewis, in a moment. If there are other genuine progressives on the City Council - if we get people like Ron Davis and Maren Costa and Tammy Morales reelected, Alex Hudson elected - it becomes easier to pull those fence sitters in the direction of more progressive policy. We got to get them reelected. And this is where - you look at our last district here, District 7 - Andrew Lewis is ahead. He's in the low to mid 40% range. We'll see what happens over the next two ballot drops where he lands in the primary. It's good, it's not as strong as Dan Strauss. But Lewis, I think, understands what he needs to do to win and will do things that lead him down policy paths that progressives don't like. We saw this on Monday where - he signaled he would do this at the vote in June and he did - stood with Bruce Harrell to agree on a plan to pass the ordinance criminalizing drug possession in Seattle, incorporating the recently passed state law. And I'm not a fan of that ordinance, not a fan of that state law. I'm also not shocked at all that it played out here exactly the way it played out in the Legislature. Progressives and progressive-ish candidates and electeds said No, voted it down the first time. It came back. They won a few concessions, more money - but I think as Erica Barnett has pointed out, it's not new money. They won promises of diversion first, but they're promises - it's all going to be overseen by Ann Davison - we'll see what happens here. This is an example of Andrew Lewis trying to straddle the fence. And there's a political logic to that. Lewis won a very close race over former SPD chief Jim Pugel in 2019. It looks like he'll be up against Bob Kettle this year, who I think is running - clearly the strongest candidate of the people chasing Andrew Lewis, not surprised that Olga Sagan didn't really pan out - she got 14%, which is nothing to sneeze at. But again, the right-wing backlash is not real. We'll see what Andrew Lewis winds up doing. Lewis is someone who is clearly susceptible to being pressured by progressives - that's a good thing. I think those of us who are genuine progressives would love to see someone who's more progressive in that seat. We're not going to get that this year. It's not going to happen, nor in the District 6 seat. Most progressives I've talked to understand that and recognize that our interests are better served by the reelection of Dan Strauss and Andrew Lewis than by just abandoning them. Because sometimes you have to work with the electeds you've got - I think that's where it stands in those two districts. Lewis has a higher hill to climb than Strauss, but it's doable. We'll see how that plays out in the fall. [00:33:16] Crystal Fincher: Yep, I agree with that. I also want to talk about the school board races, which you have talked about, written about. How did you see this playing out? [00:33:24] Robert Cruickshank: It's interesting. The power of incumbency matters. There were two races on the ballot where there were genuine contests. District 1, which covers far northern Seattle - almost overlaps District 5 in the City Council - it'd be nice if these numbers matched. This is where Liza Rankin, the incumbent, is hovering around 60% of the vote - that's partly because she got the backing of The Stranger, it's also partly because she's the incumbent. It's also partly because - while there's a lot of discontent among parents in Seattle about the way the district is being run, that hasn't crystallized into any real organizing momentum yet. Rankin's main challenger, Debbie Carlsen, who is LGBTQ, has a LGBTQ family, has done a lot of work as an educator and nonprofit leader - Debbie's one of these candidates who files for school board during filing week - that is pretty common thing to happen and it takes you a little bit of time to get your feet underneath you as a candidate. Debbie's done that over the course of July, but a lot of the endorsement meetings were held in early June when she was still figuring it out - probably didn't give the greatest Stranger interview and is unusually closely allied with the current majority of the school board. Even if The Stranger had endorsed Debbie, Liza probably comes out well ahead. It's partly, again, the power of incumbency and the fact that a lot of voters just don't really know much about what's happening with the schools. That could change in a matter of weeks if the district does, as is expected, announce a list of schools they intend to close. That's the sort of thing that gets people's attention real quick. Similarly, you look over at District 3 where there's an opening - District 3 School Board overlaps District 4 City Council, so we're talking now about northeastern Seattle, Laurelhurst, Bryant, Ravenna, part of Wedgwood. That's a place where three really interesting candidates - Evan Briggs, who seems to have the most support so far at 38%, backing of The Stranger, backed by the incumbent majority in the school board. Ben Gitenstein, who's an interesting guy - running as a protest candidate, but has smart background in finance and understanding how districts work, backing of The Stranger - he's at 33%. Christie Robertson, I think, really ran a strong campaign - having the backing of Seattle Student Union, Seattle Education Association, MLK Labor, didn't get either of the newspaper endorsements, and I think that's why she's in a very close third place. That's a disappointment there, because I think she ran the best campaign she could, but coming in a close third. I thought she was the best candidate of the bunch. But August, where a lot of parents aren't paying attention - their kids are in camps or a lot of them are traveling. August also being a time of not great turnout. And people just don't know much about the schools - school board gets less coverage these days than it used to even seven, eight years ago. We'll see what happens in the fall if school closures are put on the table, with schools being named - that changes everything immediately. Now, it's also possible the school district recognizes this and wanting to protect their allies on the school board may punt that until after the election, which will merely infuriate everybody further. We'll see what happens in the fall. This is one of those where you see a 20% approval rating of the school district, but incumbency is a powerful thing. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Incumbency is an extremely powerful thing. And one thing that we did not see in the King County Council races on the ballot was any incumbent in the race. There were two open seat races on the primary ballot. What was your take on those? [00:36:46] Robert Cruickshank: Unsurprisingly, Teresa Mosqueda doing very well in the District 8 seat - that's West Seattle, Vashon Island area. She's a great campaigner and is well-liked and well-respected. She won the city council race by 20 points in 2021, while Lorena González went down to defeat and Davison and Sara Nelson won. It's a clear fact that Mosqueda knows what she's doing - she connects well with the voters and she has a really strong record. Mosqueda has got a real clear advantage going into the fall. The District 4 seat for King County Council - we're talking about northwestern Seattle from roughly Queen Anne, Magnolia, up towards Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood - that's an open seat with a set of three very progressive candidates. Jorge Barón who's hovering around 50%, will be the clear front runner going into the fall. Sarah Reyneveld, who's at 30%. And then Becka Johnson Poppe, who had 20%. And that's gonna be interesting. Jorge, again, the clear front runner, but it's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination. You had the other two candidates splitting the vote. I think Sarah has a really good shot of scooping up a lot of people who voted for Becka and that could be a very close race too. And I think this is one where - when you have two good progressives in a race, you want to see a good contest. You want to see them push each other to be better. You want to see them fight hard on key issues like who's gonna save Metro? The school district is talking about closing schools - Metro's talking about deleting routes. In a city this wealthy, that is this supportive of transit, that is this interested in doing climate action - for King County to be deleting routes is a huge problem. We need to be expanding the number of routes we have, the frequency on those routes. And so whoever of those candidates can really speak to the issues of transit in particular could have a real advantage going into November. [00:38:22] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. The existing routes that are left is falling through the floor. I know people are calling them "ghost buses" just because of not showing up. People have bought cars that they can barely afford. But what they can afford even less is to not get to work on time, to lose the only source of income. They have to do better with Metro. I'm looking forward to that being discussed often and robustly in the general election. [00:38:49] Robert Cruickshank: We need to name it. Dow Constantine, King County Executive, is falling down at his job on transit. For most of the 2010s, he was seen as a leader on transit - he did good work to get ST3 on the ballot and approved for Sound Transit, he did good work getting more funding for Metro. But here in the 2020s, it's a different story. He has not provided the leadership or presence that we need to save these bus routes, to address their reliability concerns. This is unacceptable, right? For people to be going out and buying cars - we can't trust the bus system. In a city where we had more of our commuters riding buses than any other big city in America before the pandemic. Obviously the pandemic shakes things up - there are challenges recruiting and retaining operators, but it has to be a top priority for the King County Executive and right now it doesn't look like it is. And this city, this region, can't survive without strong transit. Our climate goals are never going to be met - transportation is the number one source of carbon emissions in our city and in our state. And that's why these King County Council races matter because we are not seeing the leadership we need to be seeing from the top. It's going to have to come from the County Council instead. [00:39:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Both the executive and the council - because they had done the work to set it up, were just - Great, it's on autopilot and it runs. But there were signs of these shortages before the pandemic and the pandemic made it worse. And on the police side - Oh my goodness, there are shortages for police, we need to give bonuses, we need to give retention bonuses and recruitment bonuses and are doing everything we can - just a laser focus on these. I think a lot of people have noticed the lack of focus on so many shortages in so many other areas. From the school board perspective, the transportation situation, the bus drivers, a shortage there - just in so many areas, not having that kind of focus. This race in particular - speaking with a number of the candidates, they did say that they believe that we should be treating some of these other labor shortages with urgency and that we should consider the same kinds of bonuses - for example, transit drivers - that they have for sheriff's deputies, which I think would help. There needs to be active and involved management there - that's something that the council overall as a body needs to do a better job with. I hope this new injection of members with this election brings that about, helps to influence the other members. And I'm looking forward to a robust debate. The other thing about the Teresa Mosqueda and Sofia Aragon race that I thought was interesting was Teresa Mosqueda knew that helping renters, that helping small business owners, that helping people get affordable housing was an absolute critical need for Seattle. Even though at the time the conservative business interests were very opposed - they'll remain opposed, and that's an issue in this general election, that's motivating a lot of the conservative money in the race - she did it. It took a lot of know-how, it took a lot of budget smarts. And then ran on it. It's one of the most popular pieces of policy that has passed in Seattle in the past decade - it bailed the City out of this last budget cycle through the shortfall. Thank goodness that passed. Her ability to run on that and her expertise absolutely benefited her. On the flip side, Sofia Aragon, who's currently the mayor of Burien, who we've talked about before on this, is going through really a crisis in government. Recently there's another kind of letter of chastisement correcting errors in the record from the mayor and the deputy mayor in Burien, yet again, from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority. This is another candidate where their voter guide statement and their communication - defund has clearly failed. That's where people are at - people are tired of hearing people complain and just that reactionary backlash, and are looking for people who are engaged, and what's really going to help. What is really going to solve this issue? And what they really have not seen recently, especially with the mayor of Burien, is engagement and policy and solutions that will help. That hurt Sofia - for someone who is a mayor in a city that has a significant population in the district to perform so poorly. And someone who arguably is - certainly in Burien - better known than Teresa Mosqueda. That gamble just failed. Hopefully that's a reminder to stop the infighting, stop the one-upmanship focus thing there, the clique-iness that has happened there with the majority on that council, and to get to work just to focus on solving the problems that the people have. In Burien, there's money on the table that they can take to help that they're refusing - and we're going to pass another camping ban. And people want actual solutions, not just rhetoric and - We're going to drive them out of town. That's not where people are at, even in the suburbs. [00:43:21] Robert Cruickshank: I agree. It reminds me a lot of the LA mayor's race last year between Karen Bass and Rick Caruso, where Caruso's wealthy developer was betting that there'd be a huge backlash to visible homelessness and that he could ride that to defeat Karen Bass. And Karen Bass, being much smarter and a much better politician, understood no. Voters want to see solutions. They want to see candidates step forward and offer reasonable answers that are going to treat people who are in crisis humanely - 'cause that's what we should be doing anyway - and that will actually going to solve the problem. And I think that's what you're seeing in King County Council District 8 - Teresa Mosqueda comes along. Everyone knows she's reasonable, sensible, committed to the solutions, and wanting to get this done. Sofia Aragon is just grandstanding. There's not a path to victory, even in King County Council District 8, for right-wing grandstanding. Those results show that really clearly. [00:44:12] Crystal Fincher: I agree. Other results from around the region that I thought were interesting were the Tacoma City Council races. Looking at the Olgy Diaz race - Olgy making it through, I think that was expected - she is going through the general election, didn't have a primary, but in a strong position. Particularly looking at the results of the race with Jamika Scott making it through to the general election against a more conservative challenger. And an incumbent in that race getting 70% of the vote. This is a situation where, again, lots of people were prepared in Tacoma - it's not Seattle, there's absolutely going to be a backlash. They have had lots of conversations and consternation, like so many other cities, about how to address homelessness, how to address poverty, how to address public safety - a lot of controversies within that police department and reform that has been needed. How did you see these races in Tacoma? [00:45:08] Robert Cruickshank: They are really interesting examples of the same phenomenon we're seeing in Seattle. I know that Tacoma is different from Seattle - don't want anyone listening in Tacoma to think that we're implying they're the same. There are some similar trends. We are seeing in Jamika Scott's strong showing here in the primaries that there is a appetite in Tacoma for genuine, real, deeply progressive change. You're also seeing that some of the backlash politics aren't necessarily succeeding in Tacoma either. Another place that we're seeing interesting things play out is Spokane - we're just having a mayoral race this year. The incumbent Nadine Woodward is very much one of these - crack down on crime, crack down on homelessness, really picking fights with the state over visible homelessness. But Lisa Brown, former state senator, former head of the State Senate in the 2000s, is pretty much neck and in a really good position to knock off the incumbent mayor. Lisa Brown running - again, is a much more reasonable, not necessarily progressive candidate. I wouldn't say Lisa Brown's progressive, but much more traditional liberal candidate who wants to come in with sensible solutions. You're seeing all over the place - the right wing backlash is not necessarily either showing up, or performing very well, to polls. [00:46:15] Crystal Fincher: This is a situation where sometimes, especially in Seattle, we get very focused on progressive and moderate, progressive and conservative. I think because of where journalism has ended up and because The Times and Stranger are such consequential endorsements - and they typically are in a moderate, in a progressive lane - that influences how we look at and categorize things in policy. We're looking across the board in the state at every level of government - especially public safety, issues of poverty, issues of homelessness, being something that every jurisdiction has to manage. There are evidence-based solutions, and there are ones that aren't. It happens to be that the evidence-based solutions are usually those ones espoused by progressives. And the ones that are not, like doubling down on the War on Drugs, doubling down on so many things that have already failed - sweep after sweep, that just moves the problem and makes it worse and doesn't do anything to solve homelessness - that those are just failed solutions, that the data just isn't there. And so I think what we're seeing work in a lot of different cities - and usually what I focus on - is talk about the issue, talk about the solution. The label doesn't really matter to the average person on the ground. We're in politics, we talk about it a lot. The average voter is just sick and tired of hearing a lot of rhetoric and not seeing things change. They just want someone who will do something that has a shot at fixing the problem after doing the same thing over and over again and not getting great results. Even if a progressive is talking about - Hey, we need a Housing First model. That doesn't mean housing only model, but housing is necessary for those other things that may also be necessary - whether it's behavioral health assistance, whether it's assistance with substance use disorder, whether there are a variety of things - that housing is necessary for those other things to reliably work and to get this person stably housed again. That is what is working. And so it's evidence-based versus things that aren't. And we're putting these labels on them, but really it's about what is going to solve this problem. So many people in the establishment are so invested in the status quo, even though it's not working - hopefully they'll become more open to evidence-based solutions. If not, they're going to have progressive challengers and progressive candidates like Jamika Scott, who is winning the race in the primary right now at 38% over Chris Van Vechten, who is a more conservative challenger in Tacoma. We see Kristina Walker, the incumbent, who is proposing evidence-based solutions for a lot of these things at 70% - not looking at a backlash there. But also in Spokane - dealing with a lot of other issues - and I will say in a lot of areas, especially, Spokane has been a leader in the state on housing, has been a leader on the state in many issues. If you're looking at the progressive versus moderate conservative in policy and action, Spokane is looking more progressive than Seattle in a number of ways. A lot of Seattle suburbs looking more progressive if you're looking at how policy is traditionally talked about. So I really think that it's about who has a shot at actually fixing this problem. Voters have heard the other stuff for a long time and have seen it fail. That doesn't mean that every progressive candidate is automatically gonna be successful, but it does provide an opening. And I think that explains a lot of the backlash that people are expecting that did not turn up and translate. [00:49:36] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think Erica Barnett doing a good job explaining that - yes, sweeps are popular in Seattle. That is true. And that's been true for a while. They're not true because people genuinely like sweeps. It's true because you ask voters to choose between doing nothing and a sweep - they'll pick the sweep because they want a solution. If you ask them to choose between a sweep and an actual solution - Housing First policies, permanent supportive housing, actually building housing that is affordable at all income levels - 9 times out of 10, they'll pick that. What the right-wing backlash folks were counting on is enthusiastic support for sweeps as the best solution. And that's not where the voters are at in this city at all, and I think you're seeing around the state, they're not there either. [00:50:19] Crystal Fincher: You mentioned before, which I think was very smart - two years back, four years back, candidates on the left and progressives were struggling to articulate that they were opposing sweeps or opposing criminalization of poverty and had a hard time breaking through because other people were maliciously mischaracterizing what they stood for. In order to get beyond that with people who have a lot of money to maliciously mischaracterize what you're doing was getting beyond the - No, we don't want to do nothing. We want to solve this thing. When we're advocating against sweeps, it's not like people are happy with encampments. It's not like people are happy with people living outside. We believe everybody should be housed. There are different solutions there. The answer is not nothing. We certainly heard a lot from Jenny Durkan, we heard from others - Oh, the alternative is nothing. They want to do nothing. When you have people attend your press conference every time you stand at a pulpit, that message is going to carry. What progressives are doing a better job of is articulating - No, we absolutely don't want to do nothing. We find crime unacceptable, and we actually want to do something to fix it. We find homelessness unacceptable, and we're tired of spinning our wheels and spending so much money and taking so much time to not improve the problem. We want to do different things that actually have a shot. That message is carrying through more, there are going to be a lot of competitive races - I don't know that that's going to carry the day, but certainly a more effective message this go around. [00:51:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. What these results overall show is that progressives have a real opportunity, but it's not a certainty. They got to use it effectively. [00:51:50] Crystal Fincher: Anything else that you think is interesting to look at on the electoral spectrum around the state? [00:51:55] Robert Cruickshank: One thing that is gleeful and a positive outcome is Semi Bird getting recalled along with two of his allies in Richland. Semi Bird is the right-wing, soon-to-be former school board director in the Richland Public Schools who tried to overturn the state's mask mandate - that led to a recall effort that has been successful. Bird is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2024 - it's pretty much him and Dave Reichert at this point. We'll see what happens. But seeing Bird get recalled in Richland, which is not a progressive hotbed by any stretch of the imagination, is another sign that this right-wing backlash is not as strong as folks thought it was. So we'll see what happens from there. [00:52:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see what happens from there. And I wanted to mention that there are a lot of school board races that did not have more than two candidates across the state. Some races in the primary had Moms for Liberty candidates, aka people who are bringing in the desire to ban books, who are trying to overrule teachers and dictate what they can teach, and really attacking LGBTQ+ students - especially trans students - and really trying to bring hateful rhetoric and Christian nationalism into our education system. There's a Highline School District candidate that made it through to the general. There are others, like in University Place, several places across the state, that are going to have these general election match-ups with some candidates who are solutions-focused and others who are strictly running to basically sow chaos, is what it turns out to be in effect - to defund the schools, to strip standards-based education, fact-based education, to stop teaching history. They love what's going on in Florida, and they want to replicate what's going on there that is really hurting that state and community. I just want people to be aware that is a thing that is happening, and we can't afford to not be engaged in these school board races unless we want to provide a foothold for that kind of thing. Candidates that start on school boards wind up in city councils, in the Legislature, running for Congress. It is making sure that we're engaged in these very local races to make sure that we don't let someone in the door who's going to turn out to advocate for really fascist policies. [00:54:10] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And we've seen Moms for Liberty candidates fail in Washington state before. We've seen some of them make it through. We saw a strong effort to try to repeal the state's new law that protects trans kids - they narrowly failed to make it to the ballot. So far so good - knock on all the wood that there is - that they're not getting more traction here in Washington state. They're working as hard as they can, and we have to work as hard as we can to push back against that. [00:54:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree. Wanted to wrap up with talking about the influence of endorsements in these elections. We've talked a lot about how consequential The Times and The Stranger endorsements have been over the past several years. I think there are a number of reasons why - I think that the thinning out of reporters covering government, covering politics on that regular beat is considerably less than it used to be, and that is impacting just how informed the public is in general on a regular basis - making these endorsements much more consequential. We also have fewer newspapers. And so those are just a couple of things making those much more important. The Stranger - looking last year - it had been at least a decade since a Stranger-endorsed candidate had not made it through a primary. The Times-endorsed candidate almost always makes it through also. So these have been and continue to be very consequential endorsements. How do you see this? [00:55:28] Robert Cruickshank: It's still the case that Stranger endorsement is essential if you're a progressive trying to get through to the general election. It confers more votes than The Times endorsement does. For those of us who are progressive, that's a good thing. It's also a double-edged sword. And you can see in Districts 3 and Districts 5 this year, some of the downsides of The Stranger endorsement. What it did is it winds up cutting off conversation, debate, and contests between the progressive candidates in the field. I like Alex Hudson - she'll make a great member of the city council. I also like the idea of seeing Alex and the other candidates in District 3, or Christiana, Tye, Nilu - the candidates in District 5 - really pushing each other hard to have to do a good job persuading progressive voters that they're the right one to carry the agenda forward. Instead, what seems to happen is Stranger makes their picks and that's the end of the discussion. You get a lot of - you alluded to this earlier - a lot of low-information progressive voters who wait until the very end, open their ballots, realizing - Oh my gosh, they're due, I've got to vote. What does The Stranger recommend? I'll vote that way. I get that. They're not stupid voters. They pay very close attention to federal politics, but they just don't know a whole lot about what's happening locally. And The Stranger is a trusted source. The Stranger is independent. They're not making endorsements usually based on relationship building. You have a clear agenda that you can trust, and they built that trusted brand over 20 years. But we have to start asking ourselves - I'm hearing more and more people asking the same question - Is it too influential? Is it too strong? Is it distorting the way campaigns are operating? Some of this is on The Stranger to ask themselves - do they want to be kingmakers or do they want to be the ones holding everybody's feet equally to the fire? I don't think you can always do both. It's also up to candidates and campaigns to figure out how do you overcome this? You can look around the country - there are lots of places in the country with strong endorsements, whether it's from an organization or an editorial board or whatever, but campaigns figure out how to get around that. I don't think progressive campaigns in Seattle have figured out how to win if The Stranger isn't backing them. I think it's time to try to get that answered - not as a slap at The Stranger, but it's unhealthy for one outlet to have that much influence. [00:57:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think that it is important just to have that conversation and cutting that off is problematic. The Stranger does a better job of actually trying to pin down candidates on answers and making it visible when someone is hedging. I think that's a very useful thing, especially in Seattle politics where lots of times people love giving a progressive impression - paint a rosy picture - Of course, I love trees and I love kids and all of that. And some people are satisfied with that, but we have to get to real specific policy answers - Would you vote yes or no on this? - to get an idea of who we're really voting for. I think The Times has really fallen down on that front. One important thing in races overall is just understanding where candidates do stand and where they're not taking a stand. And that is very predictive about how someone is going to vote and whether they're going to lean on issues, whether they can be pressured to taking a No vote on something that they may have indicated or given a nod to that they're broadly supportive of. So I hope we have robust conversations just about where candidates stan

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm! The show kicks off with a rundown of The Urbanist's primary election endorsements, followed by discussion of a Federal Way shooting that raises lots of questions, the Burien council majority's continued failure on homelessness response, Ed Murray being spotted at political events, a court ruling that Seattle's primary encampment sweeps tool is unconstitutional, and a Mayor Harrell change of heart on South Lake Union light rail stations. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Doug Trumm Doug Trumm is Publisher of The Urbanist, where he has contributed as a writer and editor since 2015. He graduated from the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at UW in 2019 with a concentration in urban policy. As a car-free renter living in Seattle, his policy focuses include improving transit and street safety and tackling the housing affordability crisis. His cat Ole is a national treasure.   Resources “Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats” from Hacks & Wonks   “2023 Primary Election Endorsements” from The Urbanist   “The Stranger's Endorsements for the August 1, 2023, Primary Election” from The Stranger   “Seattle Times editorial board endorsements: Aug. 1, 2023, primary” from The Seattle Times   Endorsements from PubliCola   Progressive Voters Guide from Fuse WA   2023 Policing and Public Safety Voter Guide - Seattle City Council from People Power Washington   “Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police say” by Lauren Girgis from The Seattle Times   “Burien still can't decide whether it'll take homelessness offer” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “After Refusing Shelter Offer from King County, Burien Proposes Camping Ban” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces his resignation on September 12, 2017.” by Nick Rousso from HistoryLink.org   “City's Primary Tool for Sweeping Encampments Without Notice Ruled Unconstitutional” by Erica Barnett from PubliCola   “Harrell Advances New Denny Station Options That Could Delay Ballard Link” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Transit Advocates Push to Save South Lake Union Light Rail Station” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Ballard Link Extension: South Lake Union Stations Webinar #2 | Sound Transit   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, I chatted with Carrie Barnes, Chair of the King County Democrats, about how the county party engages in local elections and politics to improve lives in our area. Today, we are continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Hey. [00:01:20] Doug Trumm: Hey, good to see you - thanks so much for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Very, very happy and excited to have you. And as we sit here, people have ballots at their homes - you should have received your ballot - if you haven't, you should pursue getting another one or tracking down where that is. But primary election is in full swing. The primary election end date is Tuesday, August 1st. And wow, there have been a lot of endorsements, including endorsements from The Urbanist. Who did The Urbanist decide to support in several different races? And what was the approach The Urbanist took to making these endorsements? [00:01:58] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we are excited to announce our slate. I'll, I guess, start with how we got there, which was a painstaking process - we've done it the same way, going back six, seven years. And that involves - first, the questionnaire to get people on the record about some issues important to urbanists and Safe Street advocates and housing advocates. And then after they've submitted their questionnaire, we invite them in for actual interviews that are now happening over Zoom - which has been convenient, I think, for everyone, since we're covering a wide area. We probably should have been doing this the whole time - save the candidates time and you get through more candidates. And it's about a 25-minute interview and you learn a little bit more - when you get a vague response in a questionnaire or some issue becomes relevant that maybe wasn't when you sent out the questionnaire. And then we debate what we felt about it. And luckily we didn't have any big fights this year, but obviously some disagreement. And I guess I can start with the Seattle City Council. We also endorsed in Bellevue this year, but where we endorsed, there's not a primary - so not the big fireworks that rolled that one out, but there will be more in the general. But we'll start in order. District 1 in Seattle - Maren Costa, we liked. She's a climate activist and clearly had the best housing platform. A slam dunk as far as what urbanists are looking for, I think, as some of the other candidates were much more wishy-washy about how much housing are they going to allow and how many ways are they going to allow to block it. Costa was pretty clear - I want housing. And then in [District] 2, we liked the incumbent, Tammy Morales. She's been the most strident Safe Streets advocate in the council, so we need someone like that 'cause it's very hard to get Safe Streets projects done. And her district is also in most in need of it, and she's been very clear about that. So it just seems like we need a strong voice, especially in that district. D3, we went with Alex Hudson. We thought she had the most policy chops experience - a lot of progressives in that race, but we thought Alex had the most ability to get it done. In D4, we liked Ron Davis. Didn't really seem to be anyone else who wanted the progressive mantle in that race, and maybe that's a credit partially to Ron Davis being a strong candidate. And we think he is really clear about where he stands and not very politician-y in that way, which is refreshing - was very clear about he wanted a lot of housing in the Comp Plan update that's due next year. Just to underscore that it's a really consequential election because that Comp Plan update is happening next year and a lot of big stuff happening next year, so definitely don't sit out this election. And Ron seems like the person clearly who actually believes in urbanism, believes in 15-minute cities, and things that can make it easier to get around the city as well. Competition just isn't very good. Then in D5, we went with Nilu Jenks. And that is interesting, right - so maybe I get your take on that rather than keep grandstanding here with our endorsements - but we liked Nilu a lot, but then it turned out The Stranger went with ChrisTiana ObeySumner, who we didn't get a chance to interview, otherwise we might have been so inclined potentially - just couldn't get that scheduled. So we ended up going with Nilu, who is pretty strong on most of our issues - was clear she was for housing abundance. And we didn't love some of her police takes, but we thought she was the best candidate we interviewed. And then The Seattle Times went with Cathy Moore. D5 is a weird race because Cathy Moore is now the de facto business chamber candidate, but there aren't as clear of lines. Did you have anything on that or should I keep going? [00:05:18] Crystal Fincher: I think you should keep going and I will chime in at the end. But I do agree that is a race with a number of very interesting candidates that I think are all worthy of looking into. And I think looking deeper into, particularly ChrisTiana ObeySumner and what they're doing is warranted. [00:05:36] Doug Trumm: Yeah, we're gonna continue to try to get that interview scheduled, so there's always potential in the general - it can be different. Also, who knows who's gonna make it through that primary, so it could be a very interesting field - there's a lot of candidates who have a decent shot. Tye Reed also has the Transit Riders Union endorsement and some other progressive endorsements, and is running probably farthest to the left. We wrote in our write-up that we liked Tye as well, but we just thought Nilu had the stronger chance in the general and also a little bit more of a bridge builder. Then moving on to D6, we went with Dan Strauss. We weren't terribly excited about it. He's been someone who's definitely tacked to the center and to the right. And his district has too, so maybe that's just survivalism, but we don't think those votes are good - I'm thinking of his recent vote that gave Ann Davison the power to lock poor people and drug users on the street. It just seemed like a forced vote - there wasn't actually a treatment plan and a diversion plan offered, but on pinky swearing - I don't know how you would take that pinky swear from Ann Davison. So that was a culmination of a continuing slide to the right, especially on safety. And he's been all right as Land Use Chair, but also has moved fairly slowly. But compared to Pete Hanning, his main competition, Dan's still clearly better so we went with Dan. And then D7, we went with Andrew Lewis. We thought Andrew Lewis and Dan Strauss were very similar - they both reflected as progressives and there was always questions about how progressive they really are, but I think Andrew's done a better job than Dan at defining himself and taking some brave votes here and there - he's been more accessible in explaining his waffles, rather than waffle-and-hide - I think that waffling is indicative of his kind of process to get somewhere. I'm not sure, always, what Dan's thinking. So we went with Lewis. The people running against Lewis also are all running pretty far right. It wasn't like there was someone who was gunning for The Urbanist endorsement in that race. But I think Lewis, as Chair of the Homelessness Committee, has done some good stuff and been very clear about trying to set up a alternate response and really hammering on that, so he's definitely worthy of a second term. We also endorsed in King County Council. One really hard race for us to endorse - because we had so many candidates we liked and we really went back and forth about how to do it - we ultimately decided not to do a dual. But in District 4 of the King County Council, which is Northwest Seattle, we went with Becka Johnson Poppe. And she works at King County now as a Budget and Policy Director, and that experience pushed her over the top for us. She's someone who already can hit the ground running. She knows this stuff inside-out and she has credibility - she is a progressive and has pushed on stuff. And one thing we're really watching on the King County Council is Metro Transit service - it's not where it was pre-pandemic, there's less frequency. And she's someone who's been clear about county-wide Transportation Benefit District, which could fund bus service and get us back to that pre-pandemic level eventually. Oddly, the King County Council's been dragging their feet on that and letting obstacles stand in the way rather than solve those obstacles, which is always frustrating to see. I think getting some new people in there, maybe they can take more of a problem-solving approach rather than - We can't get enough bus drivers, so I guess we're gonna accept mediocrity from our transit delivery. [00:08:32] Crystal Fincher: If that would have been a dual endorsement, who would have been the other? [00:08:36] Doug Trumm: Probably Jorge Barón. The vote didn't go that way, so I couldn't say for certain how it would have went. We liked all three candidates in that race, so I think it would probably have been Jorge - who got in late, but has an incredible record as far as leading [Northwest] Immigrant Rights Project. He's led that organization, has done incredible work. We certainly heard from him how he was going to apply that background to advocating for people of color communities in the county and understanding their issues better. And even though you're not gonna be determining that policy at the county level, you are doing a lot of policy that still affects people's livelihood. So liked Jorge Barón - he ended up getting The Seattle Times endorsement, he's pretty progressive for a Seattle Times endorsement. It might just be a reflection of three pretty progressive people in the race. Did The Stranger also go with Jorge? [00:09:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, he nailed what many candidates don't usually nail, which is getting both The Times and The Stranger endorsement. That doesn't happen that often, but when it does, it is usually a very encouraging sign for that candidate. But you're right, this is a race where there are only good choices. And so it just depends on your personal preferences and who you think can best carry out the vision - three solid candidates, each with impressive resumes and impressive experience. [00:09:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the third being Sarah Reyneveld, who got the Transit Riders Union endorsement, and I think a handful of labor endorsements. And has also been someone who's been active on transit issues - that countywide Transportation Benefit District, or other funding measures, to get the county back on track. Another open seat in the County Council in District 8, a more West Seattle-type area all the way to Burien and Tukwila. We went with Teresa Mosqueda, which was an easy choice for us, especially after her main competition - Burien Mayor Sofia Aragon - has been on this get-the-homeless-people-out-of-our-city-and-not-provide-services tangent now. So Teresa Mosqueda has been a great City Councilmember in Seattle, and obviously it'd be tough to see her go. She has a clear plan of how she's going to continue working on these issues at the county - transit, housing, healthcare, and childcare kind of being the pillars of her platform. And yeah, she's just someone who got a lot done, including JumpStart, which was the biggest step forward for progressive tax reform in Seattle in maybe ever. So I think that kind of resume is tough to beat. [00:10:49] Crystal Fincher: And that makes sense. There are a number of races for people to choose from this year - definitely going to be reshaping what the Seattle City Council looks like, with so many vacancies and so many open seats and new candidates that are going to be coming aboard. I think it's a solid group of endorsements. There are arguments that can be made for some other candidates in some of those races. I think District 5 is one of those where there are a number of good choices. You talked about Tye Reed, who was instrumental in the passage of social housing in Seattle - making that happen, getting that passed, and has been an organizer for a while around a number of different issues in the city. No one can question Tye's dedication to these issues and real personal investment - and making sure it can get better. We talked about ChrisTiana ObeySumner and Nilu Jenks, so we'll see how that race turns out - that's going to be another interesting one to check out. So we'll leave that there. We'll probably include links to other endorsing entities - just as you try to make up your mind as a listener and a voter - just to give you resources there to assist with those. Also want to talk about a number of other things, but we will go to this brief story about a drive-by shooting - evidently, sheriff deputies were on-site. There's not much that's been reported, and it really seems like the reporter dictated an initial statement from the police and didn't ask any questions. I'll read it to you, and then we can talk about it. Title - Person killed during drive-by shooting in Federal Way, police Say. A person was killed during a drive-by shooting while King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check early Saturday morning in Federal Way. Officers were attempting to check on the person seen behind a property in the 3900 block of South 320th Street shortly before 3 a.m. when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. Sheriff's spokesperson, Sergeant Eric White said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene. Deputies followed the two vehicles but they got away. No arrests had been made as of Saturday afternoon. Several businesses are located in the area of the shooting. That's the whole story. That's quite an interesting tale. What is your initial reaction to this, Doug? [00:13:16] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's a head scratcher - have a story, we don't have a lot to go on. It tears down the mythology of what policing can do, especially with us rolling back our police chase limitations and letting police go hog wild in these chases again - at this past session at the State Legislature - because of pushback from the police lobbying forces. Theoretically, they were gonna do these chases and catch people exactly like this. They saw someone doing a drive-by shooting and they were in their cars, conceivably - this is the perfect time to do that chase. And yeah, it didn't work out, so it just underscores that using police chases is such a uncertain and certainly dangerous type of way to try to apprehend criminals when you can easily just ID the car and catch up with them later. And there's so many pedestrians and other bystanders that die in these chases - there really has to be a good chance of a good outcome, like some sort of win, to deal with that collateral damage. That's the first thing that popped into my mind. And the drive-by was apparently someone else. All these police press releases, reported with very little critical eye - when police are involved, they put it in passive voice and passive action. But because of that way they write the press releases, you wonder - Did the police open fire? Did they do anything? - we don't have that information yet. It was reported as a drive-by, so one would assume it wasn't just police opening fire during a wellness check. Were these people involved in the wellness check at all? - you end up with more questions than you have answers. In real-life situations, you realize there's so much that could go wrong. [00:14:42] Crystal Fincher: So many questions I have - a person was killed during a drive-by. Okay, so King County Sheriff's Office deputies were performing a wellness check. First thing, Federal Way has its own police department - doesn't contract with King County for its deputies. So these deputies, for some reason, responded instead of the Federal Way Police Department. Was it in response to a call? Who called it in? But they decide to go by themselves. Why were they on scene? So they were attempting to check out a person behind a property, they say, when two vehicles sped off and two shots rang out. I notice it doesn't say those shots came from the vehicle - it's vaguely worded and isn't useful, especially when there's so much that can be consequential, based on their characterization of what happens. Then the Sheriff's spokesperson said the person was hit by gunfire and died at the scene - I'm wondering if this reporter did anything but dictate this statement - did they ask anything about this? This is just a very vaguely worded statement. Deputies followed the two vehicles, but they got away. Again, this is a situation where even with the police pursuit law, they would have been able to follow them, but they said they needed a rollback to be able to catch criminals like this, and evidently that's not the case. What happened here? So no arrests have been made, no information has been shared that we've seen. What was the make and model of the car? Any description of the people inside the car? What came of that whole thing? There's no information. So if we take what they say at face value, what a spectacular failure in public safety. You have two officers on-site, and a person still gets murdered according to this account? All the excuses of they need more officers, they need more funding, we need to be able to have the officers nearby, on-site to protect people - there were two here, and they couldn't protect one person. How does that happen? Why does that happen? What was the situation? Was something missed? Did they not see people prowling in the area? What a failure. They assume that the shots came from this vehicle that killed this person. How do we not have a description of the car, a license plate, the people inside, any followup on that? Where does this case stand? None of that information provided. If police departments want to restore trust, if they want to have people work for them - those are the kind of answers that people want to see. Do people want to work for a department that can't stop a murder when two deputies are on scene, that can't apprehend a perpetrator when they have a zero-second response time and they can immediately respond? What is the purpose and utility here? And are they doing the work to figure out how to keep this from happening again, to figure out how to actually ensure safety? Unfortunately, too often that is not the case. And that's if you take everything just at face value here. It would be great to see some supporting information - some dash cam, body-worn camera video - just to see what happened, how this happened, and does the evidence match up with the narrative here? There is work that the Federal Way Police Department needs to do, that many departments need to do, and that the King County Sheriff's Office needs to do to rebuild trust within the community. [00:17:54] Doug Trumm: Why even run the story if you have so little information? It plays right into the police narrative. [00:17:59] Crystal Fincher: Yep, definitely a decision that The Seattle Times should dive into and ask themselves a lot of questions - about how this came to be published and what information they were relying on. Also wanna talk about the City of Burien and their continuing shame, really. The council majority deciding that not only do they wanna refuse the offer of shelter - the million dollars, 30-some odd Pallet shelters on provision, 100-ish parking spaces to backfill some space that a dealership was using. They are turning all that down and moving towards just a blanket camping ban in the city, which we've seen fail in so many other cities, but they are determined to do it themselves. This again is happening on a 4-3 council vote. The council majority, unfortunately, is winning this. What do you see happening here? What's your reaction to this, Doug? [00:18:57] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it's pretty sickening. I don't know that folks necessarily saw this coming. We saw some progressives elected onto the Burien City Council, so there was some hope that they were actually going to be looking towards making progress on this issue, doing things that actually work in the long term - rather than sweeping it under the rug and pushing it to other cities. But the four centrists on Burien City Council continue to hammer on this issue - they're not taking this offer of help that very few other cities in the region have, with so few strings attached, to a million dollars worth of housing for their homeless people. It's the type of thing that makes your head explode because - if you're mad about homeless people, having more roofs over the people's heads is the most direct way of dealing with that. And they had a million process complaints, like - Oh, what's gonna happen in five years or whatever? We're gonna be on the hook. It's just that type of thing that they wouldn't ask for any other offer of a million dollars from the county - suddenly they want a 20-year plan for this when they have no plan themselves. It's really, like you said, shameful. They've lost the majority of their Burien Planning Commission, as you've talked about in this podcast before, because of this move when the mayor decided to remove the head of the Planning Commission and then some other Planning Commissioners quit in protest. We all covered all that, but the one thing that's gonna happen if that commission continues to be unfilled is it's gonna slow down the production of housing in Burien - large projects have to go to that commission. If that happens, you're exasperating your housing shortage - they're creating the problem that they're complaining about. It's maddening, it's not treating these folks as human beings - I think it was Stephanie Mora referring that they should poop in doggy bags like they're dogs - it's clearly dehumanizing language. I think should be disqualifying for holding this office, but hopefully they lose their seats. For now, they're the people making policy for a city of about 50,000 people - it's crazy. [00:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it absolutely is. And as you talked about, Mayor Sofia Aragon, Deputy Mayor Kevin Schilling, Councilmember Jimmy Matta have been part of making these decisions that are unconscionable. This is really a depiction of this soft, kind of progressive rhetoric with a wink and a nod. In previous statements, they had talked like - We definitely want to sweep, but we'll do it in a nice way, in a compassionate way, in the progressive way. But when it comes down to it, they really weren't interested in that at all. They just wanted to get people away and using very dehumanizing language. The real tell is - the place where they usually make an excuse and get away with it - We don't have the money. We don't have the resources. If we could, we would, but we just can't - we don't have anything, I'm sorry. So the only choice we have is to sweep because we just don't have the choice to do anything else. King County basically called that bluff and said - Okay, we've got a million dollars for you. We've got Pallet shelters ready to go. We've got a location that we can partner with. And hey, this dealership is gonna be impacted? We'll provide 100 parking spaces, which is larger than their inventory. - every objection, every excuse, every hurdle that they had was basically responded to by the county. And by the way, kudos to Dow Constantine and his office for taking a stance and for trying to constructively work with the City of Burien. There sometimes have been criticisms for Dow doing that in South County. He is doing it here. And Burien and the Council majority - they turned all that down. They could have already housed the people there. This would make a meaningful, visible, substantial difference in their situation overnight - once this is implemented - and they just decided not to. They're just looking for a ban. Bans are wholly ineffective, as the prior sweeps were wholly ineffective. And they just moved people from one location to another and making, as you said, the problem they're allegedly trying to fix even worse. This is just a continuing shame and negligence from the council. These people are their constituents - whether someone has a home or not, these are Burien residents - and their job is to help them and to serve them. And they refuse to do so. And it's shameful. It's pathetic. [00:22:59] Doug Trumm: Hopefully they come to their senses - this 4-3 split has been pretty durable. [00:23:03] Crystal Fincher: We will see what the primary elections hold. Sofia Aragon is running currently for King County Council against Teresa Mosqueda. I don't think anyone really expects Sofia to win this race. But it is really important to make sure people don't just rest on their laurels and sit on the sidelines. And even in this primary, even when it seems like one person is clearly more qualified than the other, you actually need to vote and make your own choice. [00:23:28] Doug Trumm: These are like conservative trial balloons - they're testing the waters - can Democrats get away with very conservative Trump-esque rhetoric, dehumanizing homeless people, pandering to cops in completely unaccountable ways? They want to see if that works. I don't know if Sofia is connecting these two - it seems like she would be when she declares for office for the King County Council race. But maybe her calculation is this makes her more popular. And I think it's really incumbent upon people who don't agree with that to actually turn out to an odd-year election, because it's validating that approach. And you're going to see more and more of it if people get rewarded for that. [00:24:05] Crystal Fincher: That's blatantly the calculation that they're making. Kevin Schilling has an opponent - Patricia Hudson - running against him right now, who is the progressive choice who is endorsed by King County Democrats. I mean, they received a very unusual letter of rebuke from the King County Executive's office, also from the 33rd District Democrats, which encompasses part of Burien. And the other part of Burien is the 34th, who also submitted an open public letter of rebuke. Anyone who calls themself a Democrat on record, locally, is outwardly opposing it. And it hasn't stopped them. In fact, they seem to be using that as cred. So this is important. These are still the people in office. They do need to be held accountable, and people need to make their voices heard. Another disillusioning development we've seen over the past couple of weeks is Ed Murray evidently popping up at political events around the region and definitely catching a number of people off guard. There seem to be some people who are okay with it. But just as a reminder - Ed Murray, former legislator, former mayor of Seattle, had to resign in disgrace as mayor of Seattle after credible allegations of molestation of underage people who were under his care and also potentially a family member. Also troubling was his response using someone's background against them - they were going through hard times as unhoused youth working with LGBTQ youth, who oftentimes very unfortunately are disowned by family, kicked out of the house, and left in very vulnerable positions - to then cite that vulnerable position as a reason why someone may not be believed was really victim blaming. The entire community, who has so many people who have been victimized - was a re-victimization to hear that. But he's been out of the public eye for a while and seems to be doing a soft launch to get back in. What's your reaction to this? [00:26:04] Doug Trumm: With someone like that who's had such a long political career, they don't start going to political events just for fun. They're plotting getting back into politics. He's clearly testing the waters here, seeing if he can get back into politics. He's seeing if he can get acceptance enough to the point where he can run for something again or be a campaign manager. I don't think it should happen. And it's also not a pleasant experience for folks who did have a negative reaction to his handling of that situation - making it very hard for his accuser to come forward because he was using the whole weight of his office against that person. That's not how you handle it if you're a leader - you don't victim blame. Luckily, he finally resigned, but he was going to hold on to that office with everything he had. [00:26:44] Crystal Fincher: I also think that's a low bar. It's wholly inappropriate for him to be in these. There's been no atonement. There's been no acknowledgment of what he's done. And while I don't believe in throwing people away forever, there has been nothing to indicate that he acknowledges what he's done, that he's attempted to make amends to his victims. In fact, that seems quite the opposite. He's just hoping to pick up where he left off. I think it is going to be really interesting to survey who is okay with him being at political events, and at their political events, and who is not - and what that says about different people as candidates. Who is finding this troubling and who is finding it just fine? I'm curious about where he does feel welcome and why, and what that says about those spaces. We will see how this continues to unfold throughout the city. And if you spot Ed Murray, shoot me a message. Also, a pretty significant court ruling this week came in about encampment sweeps, particularly about the City of Seattle - Seattle has been sweeping too broadly and is unconstitutional in its application. When there's clearly a risk to public safety or they are blocking completely a sidewalk, there is cause for encampment sweeps. But they've been doing it too much and for reasons that are too broad - they need to effectively offer shelter and provide shelter if they're going to sweep people. Without that provision of shelter, there's nowhere else for someone to go. It is illegal to say you can't exist here - in essence, you're saying you can't exist anywhere. And this court ruling was powerful with some pretty clear statements calling the current policy dehumanizing, destabilizing, and counterproductive. How did you see this? [00:28:31] Doug Trumm: The two individuals who brought it - their story was so tragic - they mentioned losing wedding rings, family heirlooms, because they've just been repeatedly swept while they're getting services or going to work or whatever. One person mentioned losing their work boots and then that jeopardized their employment and that sunk them deeper into the spiral of homelessness. They kept getting these last-second-notice sweeps because they were supposedly an obstruction. If the definitions are broad, they don't have anywhere to go. The ruling says the two main ways they were bending this rule is they were defining the blockages - 50% blockage, it becomes 100% blockage in their eyes, or even a 30% blockage - because some of these sidewalks in downtown are fairly wide. And unfortunately, some sidewalks in our city are pretty narrow. Often folks aren't trying to block the whole sidewalks. They're trying to go somewhere they can and not fear that their stuff's gonna get snatched up and taken away. They lost all these valuable possessions, including their wedding ring. What are we doing here? This cruel unusual punishment that rises to a constitutional violation and this judge issues this ruling. Now the City's gonna have to rethink how they do this. The other main way they avoid the Boise ruling, Martin v. Boise, is they say that anything in the park is an obstruction - because someone wants to use that particular part of the park, even if it's some secluded, say in the forest, in a large park when 99% of the park is still accessible. Part of Mayor Harrell's campaign pledges to clear the parks. Some of the parks are clearer than they were when he took office, but others still have encampments and it goes to this whack-a-mole approach of you're constantly chasing people around the city at great expense and great suffering to some individuals, like the two that brought the suit, and we haven't made durable progress. [00:30:11] Crystal Fincher: Another event this week with Sound Transit - Mayor Harrell is up for a Denny Station on West Lake Avenue again. How'd this happen? [00:30:19] Doug Trumm: Hey, I gotta give credit to grassroots organizers there - there's a lot of people involved. Seattle Subway sent, I think, over 6,000 letters via online petition. Uptown Alliance got a lot of letters because they were also very dismayed to see that the station on the eastern edge of their neighborhood was suddenly gonna disappear - at a whim - six, seven years into this process. And what was happening here, if you didn't follow this story, is there's gonna be obviously this new Ballard Link Light Rail line that will go from Downtown to Ballard. And on the way, it's gonna pick up Denny Triangle, it's gonna pick up South Lake Union, it's gonna pick up Uptown. And these were gonna be really high-use stations, but there's one problem in that some of the corporations and real estate interests in Denny Triangle were not excited about the station location. Folks like Amazon, Vulcan, were lobbying against this location because they didn't like the closure of Westlake Avenue, they said, which South Transit at this point in this process was estimating a full closure of four years. They're putting the station right under Westlake so they do have to mine it, it's gonna be closed for that part. But they realized that they could put decking over the top - they didn't propose that initially 'cause it's more complicated and expensive. But they realized they could do that, obviously, if the alternative is putting some station two blocks to the west, which is what the proposal that came forward out of this last-minute wrangling - wasn't in the DEIS, the draft environmental impact statement. So that means it requires more planning and process. So there's two public meetings online that Sound Transit is hosting - I think one of them is today and the other one is a couple of days from now - we can link to that in the notes maybe. But because this shifted-west alternative came forward late in the process, was proposed as a way to alleviate these concerns from corporations and real estate - they had to do this process. The mayor backed it at a meeting last month, I think it was, but then last week he walked that back. He said - You know what? We really need to keep the South Lake Union Station because what happens with shifting the station west is it gets super close to the other station on Aurora, which is a major bus artery. - so that's where a lot of people were going to transfer from bus to rail. And it would put you closer to Uptown too if you're headed to the eastern part of Uptown. So the shifted-west alternative consolidates the two stations into one. And that's what sort of set off all these alarm bells with Seattle Subway and Uptown Alliance and the urbanists and others that - Hey, why are we dropping a station? And they presented to Uptown Alliance - Sound Transit did two days ago, I think it was - and apparently the consolidating those two stations, they shared their ridership analysis, which was new information. It's gonna cost about 10,000 riders - someone who was at that presentation told me. And that's a pretty big deal - 10,000 daily riders. So the mayor didn't have that information last week when he made his statement - he said he was still waiting for ridership to confirm his decision, but he said he's starting to lean Westlake and just wants a good mitigation plan, which I don't know why we couldn't start there from the first place - because we're seeing across, especially the Ballard Link Station, that there's lots of changes that are happening because people don't like the construction period and don't think the mitigation plan is very good. And there may be something to that. The mitigation plan should be really good, but rather than focus on the mitigation, we've been just tossing around all these different ideas and extending the - what that means is you have to do a whole new study and that delays the whole project. So maybe small progress there on the Denny Station decision - we can focus on how to do that right and get a good construction mitigation plan, rather than last-minute options that are un-vetted and are going to require another year or two of study. [00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, July 21st, 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Publisher of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm, that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on all platforms - Bluesky, SPILL, Twitter, all of them, Mastodon - @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Thunder around the northwest this morning. Bryan corrects actor Kiefer Sutherland on some history about the Vietnam war and Nixon. Damaged ramp from West Seattle Bridge may stay closed for more than a week. Ted Cruz says Biden's mind is “too diminished” for debt ceiling talks. // Kamala Harris previously decried the deployment of troops to the border under the Trump administration. Polling shows Robert Kennedy Jr. has moderate support amongst democrats when it comes to the 2024 presidential race. // Soccer star Lionel Messi might get a huge pay day from Saudi Arabia. Seattle councilmember Tammy Morales hosts the first gathering of the Seattle Social Housing Developer Board. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Seattle City Councilmember, Tammy Morales, proudly introduces three Seattle activists who are joining the new "Social Housing" board, the one thing that all three new board members seem to be lacking in qualifications for this board position, how the three selections are indicative of the Seattle political bubble that the majority of councilmembers embody.

On today's Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by political consultant and principal partner at Prism West, Riall Johnson! Crystal and Riall discuss a controversy in Burien following a homeless encampment clearing, because another encampment (predictably) reappeared a block away because the people without housing still lacked housing, and homelessness is caused by a lack of accessible or affordable housing. The King County Council approved a $3.5M contract to rent 50 beds from the SCORE facility in Des Moines, WA, despite Executive staff saying that it won't make much of a difference. They also discuss the seemingly lackluster results from the new bonuses designed to attract more SPD officers. They end with a discussion of the over 30 Seattle City Council candidates and how the upcoming election might unfold.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Riall Johnson, at @RiallJohnson.   Riall Johnson Riall began working in political campaigns in 2012 after he retired from a 9 year career as a professional football player. His first campaign was as a field organizer in Cincinnati, Ohio for President Obama's re-election campaign, which was also where he started his professional football career when he was drafted to the Bengals in the 6th round in 2001. Riall's focus in politics has always been on the field side of grassroots campaigns. He has knocked thousands doors for campaigns in six different states, organized the collection of over 900,000 signatures, and created grassroots volunteer groups that are still self-sustaining today.   For the past few years, Riall has been focusing his work in his home state of Washington, where he has led impactful campaigns focused on gun violence prevention, police accountability, and criminal justice reform.  After directing ballot initiative I-940, Riall founded Prism West (formerly Prism Washington) in 2018 to focus on getting progressive candidates of color in office to increase representation in government and bring real transformative policy to fruition. Many of his clients have broken many barriers by becoming the first of their demographic to be elected to their offices. He is currently working on bringing rent control back to the State of California.   Resources The Case for the Crisis Care Centers Levy with King County Executive Dow Constantine from Hacks & Wonks   “After Removing Encampment, Burien Considers the Options: Provide Shelter, Ban Camping, or Both?” by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   “Burien faces hard choices around homeless encampment” by Anna Patrick from The Seattle Times   “King County Commits Millions to Make Jail Slightly Less Crowded” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   “Slog AM: Trump Indictment Drops Today, Harrell Drags on Police Alternatives, Election Day in Other Places” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger “Slog AM: SPD Hiring Lags Despite Big Bonuses, WA Stocks Up on Abortion Pills, More Cringe from Elon” by Vivian McCall from The Stranger   Transcript   [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, Executive Dow Constantine filled me in on why King County voters should support the Crisis Care Centers Levy by voting Yes on Proposition 1 this April. The proposed levy would raise funds to address our urgent behavioral health crisis by building five new crisis care centers across the county, stabilize and restore residential treatment beds, and cultivate the behavioral health workforce pipeline. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's cohost: Principal Partner at Prism West, Riall Johnson. Hey. [00:01:28] Riall Johnson: What's up? [00:01:29] Crystal Fincher: You have been jet setting all over the place. You're an - certainly an interstate, maybe an international man of mystery at this point in time - just working all over. What have you been up to? [00:01:42] Riall Johnson: I'm Canadian, so I guess I'm international - or half-Canadian - and currently I'm in California, Southern California, working on bringing back rent control to the state of California. That's been, that's my most - my recent project. But also, I'm still involved vaguely in Washington politics - I'm still keeping a little track. And I plan on returning - probably next year for some more - help with some of my clients getting reelected as well, and trying to push things further, finish the mission that we set out to when we started Prism. [00:02:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. There's a lot of news that has happened this week. We cover local government. There's a lot of national federal news that broke out this week, whether it's the arrest and arraignment of former President Trump, to a litany of anti-trans legislation, to the unjust expulsion of two Black members of the Tennessee legislature, to Biden backtracking and issuing a betrayal of sorts and saying that, and not being equivocal about trans people being able to participate in sports and saying that maybe there are some situations where they shouldn't be allowed to, or may not be allowed to - which was a completely unnecessary action to take. I do not know why that happened - it's pretty disappointing. But in the midst of all that, we have a lot happening locally. There's been conversation in the City of Burien - and we have talked to councilmembers from the City of Burien - really interesting city to follow. And right now, they recently cleared an encampment at a site. And as predicted, as we have seen after encampment clearings in Seattle and many, many other cities - because we're not actually providing any meaningful housing, people just relocate to another location. In Burien, they relocated to another location just like a block away to another city-owned property, which caused consternation from a number of people there. Some residents concerned that - Hey, we still haven't done enough to provide these people with housing options that make sense for them and that can help them out of their situation. And other people predictably - seemingly being more worried about the visible part of the homelessness, not necessarily what people who are unhoused are going through - but mad that they have to see that and feeling that it's somehow them being spurned by people who have no place to stay moving to somewhere else where they're allowed to exist. How do you read this? [00:04:27] Riall Johnson: It's just - it's typical city behavior. You see this nationwide - they think that if you bully these folks, you push them out of their immediate space, they're gonna just be gone forever. They're gonna disappear. And we have this constant attempt of disappearing the homeless - of trying to - and not realizing they're actually people and they have to live somewhere. They're going to live somewhere, so they can't just drive across the state or somewhere so you don't see them again. And if they're still homeless, they're gonna be homeless somewhere else. So all we're doing is taking turns pushing them back around, like a pinball machine. And it's sad to watch 'cause people need to realize - if you don't wanna see them - if you gave them homes, you wouldn't see them. Or you wouldn't know they're homeless 'cause we still have to live - when you have a home, you have to leave your home and go work and do things, even though - people don't realize about 47% of homeless people have jobs. So the whole get-a-job narrative is stupid 'cause they get a job and they're still homeless 'cause we simply can't afford homes. And that's the main problem - is that housing is just not affordable. Even when they call it affordable housing, it's not affordable 'cause the AMI is skewed all wrong. So we need to build public housing. We need to go back to how we had - before Reagan cut the housing authority in the '80s - where we actually had federal funding for these houses, for housing for people. And we could actually treat it as a regional solution, which - I hate that term, but actually - 'cause we could provide housing throughout the country in spaces, not just in the City of Seattle. 'Cause you see this - in Burien, or any other city outside of Seattle, has no right to complain about homelessness because you look at the numbers from the regional housing authority - Seattle and I think one other city are the only ones that contribute to the fund. And Seattle contributes 95% or 98% of the funds to the regional solution. So the only ones that even put any money up, the only ones who even put any services up - so of course people are going to gravitate there 'cause there's services, but they put in the fund and then the other cities don't kick in anything. And they just push everything to Seattle and then point at Seattle like they're the problem - Look at all the homelessness. Well, you push all your people there constantly. So it's just typical. And you see this - I see this in LA, I see this in Long Beach. You see this in bigger cities and you see it in San Francisco. You see it in New York and Denver, Miami - the bigger cities carry the load of it and then everyone wants to crap on the big cities - Look at these Democrat run cities 'cause they're, look at all the homeless people. They're the only ones that actually treat them like humans in any sense - remotely, 'cause you don't see, when you get up close, it's like they're not even treated well here - but it's the lesser of many evils that they have to face. And they're just going to where they're going to be bullied the least. [00:07:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a challenge. And I think it is just a continual reinforcement that - as you said, this is a problem that is caused by a lack of housing. There are lots of people who try to suggest that homelessness is really an addiction problem. It's really a crime problem. And if we just treat these people like they're addicts or we treat these people like they're criminals, that that will clean everything up. We have been trying that and that approach has been failing - truly for decades now, for years and years and years. And the question really is - when are we going to stop doing the thing that has been failing and start doing the things that have been shown to be much more effective? This is a problem with the affordability and the accessibility of housing. If homelessness was primarily a crime problem, places with the highest crime rates would have the most homelessness - that's not the case. If homelessness was primarily an addiction problem, places with the highest addiction rates would have the highest rates of homelessness - that's not the case. What is the case is that areas with the highest level of housing that is unaffordable to the local populations have the highest rates of homelessness. It's because people cannot afford to live where they're at. It really is that. And so we have to provide housing to people to get them off of the street. We have to help people transition back into permanent housing. And money that we spend on criminalizing this solution, on locking people up, on putting up fencing, on making areas unavailable, on paying for security and park staff and police officers to kind of police these encampment sweeps and move people all around - it's just a recipe for failure. We know that. Why do we keep trying that? Let's provide housing and follow the evidence for what other people are doing that is working, what other cities are doing that's working. We can and need to do better. And so I did not find it surprising at all that if you sweep one location without providing people with any path to permanent shelter - yeah, you're just moving the problem around. And it sounds like the people are unhappy - a lot of people who testified were just unhappy that they didn't move the problem far enough away. But we can't keep punting to other jurisdictions, to other cities, to other counties, to other regions to help solve this problem. Every city needs to kick in and do things to meaningfully allow and provide more housing, and to keep more people in their homes, and to keep people from being evicted. [00:10:11] Riall Johnson: Yeah, I think the other - and on top of that, this is an American problem where we just need to get over - of not accepting poor people having nice things. And then we just - 'cause we have the money for it. We always have the money. It's the richest country in the world. Always have the money. Seattle's one of the richest cities in the world - has the money. Bellevue and all these other cities around - are richest suburbs and suburban towns in the world - they have the money. The thing is, and it's funny how even when you explain to people who want these sweeps or are pro-sweep - which is mind-boggling - if you ever talk to someone who really just wants them swept and kicked out, you tell them how much more it costs to sweep them, and to jail them, and to do the cleanup, and all that stuff - and it's gonna cost us more. Because essentially - hopefully we can organize all the homeless folks that are being swept all the time to sue the cities for all the possessions that they've lost and been stolen - 'cause we're really robbing these people of their stuff. 'Cause you give them no notice, you show up, you clear them out, and they don't get to get all their things, or they literally take it from them half the time and throw the stuff out. And I think there was another city - I forget which one - that actually successfully sued the city for millions of dollars as a class action lawsuit, which I hope Seattle does at some point. And I would definitely help organize that. The thing is - we spend so much more doing this cruel stuff, and people have said this before - that the cruelty really is the point. People relish in treating these people so badly, knowing that they would save more money if we just provided homes for them. But they don't wanna spend money on that - even being told and shown straight data that it costs more doing what we're already doing - to sweep them, and jail them, and assault them, and clean up the stuff. It costs us more money. Just give them homes and we save money. And bonus, you don't have to see them anymore. At least - and that's the problem - you'll see them. You just won't know they're homeless, so you won't be able to label them as such. And that's - we just have to get over just giving poor people nice things, which is a home. But we don't want - we just don't want to. We can do it, we just don't want to. [00:12:30] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Speaking of another situation where it seems like there may be other better options of what we can do, but we don't want to - is this week, the King County Council voted to extend a contract or to enact a contract with the SCORE Correctional Facility in Des Moines, Washington, to offload some of the King County jail population to that Des Moines Center - in the wake of studies, calls from employees who work there, the Public Defenders Association and many others saying that the jail is overcrowded, understaffed, a hazard to the health of the people that are living there, and there just is not enough staff support to keep anyone safe, and it's a mess. And so you had an unusual alliance of corrections facilities employees - the jail guards - in addition to public defenders saying, This is untenable and unsustainable. We need to lower the jail population. You also have a prior promise from King County Executive Dow Constantine to close the jail. Yet, it seems like policy is moving in the opposite direction, and they're spending millions of dollars to offload - what was it - 50 people to that facility. And really saying - Okay, is this meaningfully addressing this problem? Or are we just once again kicking the can down the road here to figure this out? - to spend $3.5 million to rent 50 beds in Des Moines. It was a 7-2 vote with King County Councilmembers Jeanne Kohl-Welles and Girmay Zahilay voting against the measure to transfer the inmates, really saying that they don't have enough information to really determine that this is the best alternative and that there are functionally deeper problems than this is going to solve, and we're spending money on this kind of stopgap solution that could be really, really helpful to spend in areas that may be more likely to keep people more safe. How do you read this situation? [00:14:49] Riall Johnson: It's funny. I think - it's not funny. It's ironic that it was just Girmay and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. And I would expect Girmay Zahilay to vote No on this 'cause - knowing him. I didn't expect Jeanne Kohl-Welles to vote for this, but it's amazing how principled some elected folks get when they're not running for reelection and they're not looking for - or higher office. And the funny thing is - this is what I've said in politics overall - is you don't have to trust people in politics, you trust their ambitions. And I had a very interesting conversation while - up in Snohomish with a prosecutor - and it opened my eyes because, and we're talking about bail reform - just letting them out. Why are we even putting these people in jail for minor stuff? Why are we even putting - they don't even have to be there. And that's the thing - why is this conversation, are we having in the "most progressive county" - I'm quoting, you can't see me - that we have a full jail? And it's because we have to just redefine what crime actually is. These people that they're bringing in for "crimes" aren't crimes in most other parts of the world. So they shouldn't even have to be there. It's minor offenses that they're in there, that they could just either pay a fine or not be a crime in the first place. And so we should - if we just redefined that, we wouldn't do that. But we're already stuck in this narrative that we're not tough on crime at all. We're the toughest country on crime in the world. And this is what this prosecutor told me was, and it shows - 'cause he's gonna, obviously he was gonna run for reelection at the time - when he said, I want to let these people out, but all it takes is one. All it takes is one of them to recommit and do something egregious and do something really bad. And the whole thing is gone. And it made me realize that - Yeah, he's not right. He's right about himself - his world is turned up now. His reelection chances are gone. His job, it's - his future is in jeopardy if that happens, not everyone else's. Because the thing is, no matter - the longer you hold people in jail, they're gonna - and you can't put people in jail for life. You're gonna get out at some point. They're worse off - they're gonna be - and more likely going to commit something more serious because they're in a worse situation than before. They're more damaged than before. So the effect is that we're even - why we're even putting these people in the jail, or most of these people in jail, in the first place is trivial. So we shouldn't even have to vote to relocate them or borrow beds from other states, other counties - because they shouldn't be in jail in the first place. And they're not realizing that solution. But every one of those people - all seven that voted for it - are all still planning on running for something in the future. And that's what they're scared of. They're scared of that one person that gets out of jail, commits something bad, worse, and they get blamed for it. They don't - and this happened to Chesa Boudin - 'cause he let a lot of people out of jail. And one person assaulted someone in the - actually, I think in the Asian community - and they used that as a cudgel, and just - [00:18:23] Crystal Fincher: And that was in San Francisco, right? [00:18:24] Riall Johnson: Over and over and over - yeah, in San Francisco. And that's what - they're all scared of that - you can see. And that's my theory, 'cause you talk to them one-on-one - they all wanna vote No, they all wanna do this, the right thing - but they know they can't because they're scared of the reelection chances, or further election chances, including Dow Constantine. [00:18:47] Crystal Fincher: It's something that we commonly see, and unfortunately they're afraid of - they're afraid of following the data for fear of weaponization of the anecdote. Because yes, there are certainly people who are invested in the status quo in our current system, who are salivating to use anything to help bolster their position or discredit others. Because they know that they have to rely on the anecdotes, because the data is not on their side. But there's a lot of money to be made from the existing system and what they're doing. There's a ton of money to be made in a variety of facets, but really the impact of that - and what we need to not pepper over - is that you're selling out the rest of the community, you're harming the rest of the community. Because the data is what it is. We know that overall, fewer people are going to be harmed and victimized if we change the approach that we take, if we stop focusing on these punitive, punishment-based approaches - based on us not feeling like people are worthy of humanity, or we need to personally feel like we punish them. Does that feeling justify the increased likelihood and increased events of harm that are really happening to real people? It's a challenge and it's a shame. You said Jeanne Kohl-Welles - also not running again and seeming to be a little freer in her comments and considerations - she did call on Dow to follow through on his promise to close the downtown jail. And she also expressed, as did Girmay and some other council members, expressed concern that because this appears to be such a stopgap measure that doesn't seem to be robust enough to solve the actual problem, that they're concerned about getting another request for funding, and a request for an extension, and a request for expansion of this - because this doesn't actually solve the problem, even though we're forking over millions of dollars to make that happen. So they took some votes to ensure that an automatic extension or an automatic expansion couldn't happen, that their approval is gonna be required for that. But also if you're approving this - even if that does happen, what is the logic of voting No if you voted for this? Again, I'm not quite sure what that is, but it'll be interesting to follow. We will continue to follow this, and it's a conversation that we continue to have. Also this week, we got news that bonuses so far have not shown to recruit many new officers. And for the amount of money that's invested - not just in salaries and benefits for police, but also these signing bonuses - certainly I think most people were hoping, who viewed this as a solution, to get much more bang for their buck as they did. It's interesting in that we have heard the Harrell administration talk about data and dashboards and all that information. And the data that we have received on this doesn't seem to be too promising, yet that doesn't seem to be deterring many people. They said it's too soon to figure out that this is a failure, or to conclude that this is a failure. We did see an uptick in some of our hiring and have a bit of a larger class, so maybe there's some benefit that we're getting from this. Although we have heard from officers themselves who've said - These signing bonuses don't make a difference. If someone is leery to come, and especially given the salary, throwing an extra $10,000 at them isn't really going to be big enough to make the difference here. Now it could with a lot of other positions that have shortages in the City, but we seem to be focused on police right now. And so it is just going to be interesting to see if it's just - well, the data didn't look like we wanted it to, but we're just going to keep pushing forward and not adjust - while expressing the importance of better performance and getting data and metrics from other public safety initiatives or things that are running behind, like alternative response. And really this is money that could be invested in other areas. How do you see this? [00:23:48] Riall Johnson: It's just another - I feel like I'm repeating myself - it's typical. It's typical American exceptionalism - thinking that the country with the most police than any other military force, with more police than any other military force, is going to solve this. There's never been a correlation of more police and less crime - never. If anything it's gone the opposite - less police, you get less crime. We're so invested as a country - that more police is going to solve our stuff. And we have more police than ever, always. And it's just never affected crime. And if anything, it just affects more arrests - and it's just arrests for bull crap - told you I wasn't going to cuss. So I think it's - sarcastically speaking - if we were just nicer to cops in Seattle, more of them would come 'cause that's what - don't take this out of context 'cause like someone's clips this, 'cause it's - that's the narrative you see in the newspaper. Cops don't want to be here 'cause they're not nice to us here. There's too much protest, and too liberal, and it's too progressive. You hear this narrative outside - that's what's deterring - if that's deterring cops, it's too bad. Your job's tough, I'm sorry. You completely say - We're proud, we support the blue, and it's the toughest job - f*cking do it. They don't want to do it. They want an easy job where they can bully people and get away with it more often. So they're not afraid of being - and it's not so much being treated bad - they're afraid of accountability 'cause they feel like Seattle might hold them more accountable. I think it just doesn't matter 'cause - and I'm happy actually that less and less people want to be cops because probably - you see this generation's growing up - seeing more and more of what cops are doing, less of them want to be that. And I hope that's gonna be a nationwide trend overall. Gen Z and Gen A, I think are growing up - they're seeing more and more police violence. We didn't get to grow up seeing those constant videos. All we saw was a Rodney King video - we didn't have the cameras. I'm turning 45 this month. I didn't see constant police violence growing up. I grew up - I was 16 when Hillary and Joe Biden and Bill Clinton brought us the crime bill. I was a super predator in their eyes. And we were sold on that - me and my generation and everyone else - was sold on that stuff that more police is gonna solve this. And all it did was just lock more people up - for the same stuff I saw at Stanford University, tons of kids do. And boy, they weren't kicking down those doors. So it's never - more police has never solved crime - is not going to. So I'm actually happy that it's failing because it's going to show - and you see the stats of crime is still staying the same or going down, even with less cops. If we invest more in the communities and provide more housing and more services, we'll have less crime - 'cause we'll have less poverty and we'll have less need - because most of them is just crimes of poverty. So I think this is something I want to see nationwide - is just less cops, people wanting to be cops, because we're opening people's eyes to the culture of it. And a lot of younger generation growing up don't want to be part of that culture. And I hope that - so I say, keep filming people, keep filming them all the time, put them on blast, hold them accountable as best you can. And hopefully this is a trend that we see nationwide. [00:27:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And it will be interesting to see where these trends follow. It'll also be interesting just to see the electoral trends. We also saw this week, the City of Chicago opted to elect a progressive mayor who the police union was vehemently opposed to. They said that they would walk off the job if this person were elected and they're just going to do that. And well - the city's voters called their bluff. [00:28:02] Riall Johnson: Please leave. Please don't go - oh no. We'll see if they do - they won't, they won't. [00:28:11] Crystal Fincher: Maybe a couple might, but once again, I think this is an area where residents continue to be out ahead of elected officials in this area. Residents don't seem to have the hang up over conversations about comprehensive public safety, and public safety being much bigger than policing and having to be much bigger than policing. We have to have conversations about meeting people's basic needs. We have to have conversations about poverty and homelessness and all of that. And really addressing the roots of those problems - making sure people's basic needs are met - that impacts our public safety, that impacts how many people are victimized, it reduces the amount of people who are victimized in a variety of ways. And that really is the bottom line - we become safer when we do that. Think voters are there - there's certainly a large percentage of them - winning percentages of voters are there. And we just need actions by our elected officials that reflect that. [00:29:15] Riall Johnson: It's funny - unless you've been in a situation where you can't afford food, can't afford rent, can't afford a place to stay, you can't judge people if they're taking from major corporations. Meanwhile, corporations are committing exponentially more wage theft than you could ever steal from the cosmetic aisle. And it's very hard to combat the narrative as a consultant or in politics when they only have to show one or three videos - one to three videos - of the same shoplifting over and over and over, and then say it's a crime spree. They have the illustration advantage to do that. It's very hard. It was very hard to combat that in 2021 and to this day. So apparently, if you listen to the right narrative - the narrative on the right - crime has been skyrocketing for so long. But the stats show it's lower or the same - it's apparently gone through the graph and come back up to the bottom to go right back where it was. But every year, crime's skyrocketing. So where is it skyrocketing to? Apparently, everyone's a criminal at this point if you say - what is skyrocketing and what is actually crime. I used to do crime all the time when I was in college. I was at Stanford University, one of the richest schools in the country, and I shoplifted all I got, all I could 'cause I was broke. I couldn't work. I wasn't allowed to work. This is before the NIL [name, image, likeness] stuff. I stole groceries constantly. I'm admitting to the crime. I testified on this during the whole, and when we were trying to legalize college athletes getting paid. 'Cause when I can afford food, I don't have to steal it. But I have to eat somehow. And I had to eat at a level of a college athlete, of a college football player. So I stole groceries from Safeway constantly, every chance I got. And thank God I was good at it - but also, I had to. What else was I going to do? My parents couldn't send me money, and I couldn't even get a job 'cause it was illegal for me to get a job while I was in college. I was fortunate to not grow up in poverty, and my parents were middle class, but they weren't obviously able to just send me money every week while I was in college - sitting there broke. So I stole - I just stole food. And if they even had it, I was scared to ask them for it. I felt more dignified stealing food than asking for money from my parents - even if it was like 20 bucks, so I can go grocery shopping, which that could actually get some groceries back then, 1998. So we have to understand - it's not about who's doing the crime or what's happening - it's like why? Why is this happening? And they think it's just 'cause people are criminals and we need to lock up more people. Even though as a country, we lock up more people than anywhere else in the world - at four times the rate. And we think doing that more is going to solve the problem. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, to me - it's just telling - okay, if that's what we have been doing for 30 years, and we feel that things now are worse than they've ever been - maybe that's a signal that it's not the best solution. Maybe that's a signal that that approach has failed and we should try something else. That is not how people invested in keeping things the way they are feel about it, by and large, unfortunately. But I guess the other news is that there - wow, is a whole lot more people who are less and less invested and actually invested in changing the way that things are. And those are becoming majorities in many cities and areas and states. And we're seeing that play out in a lot of these elections. So we will continue to follow that conversation and what happens. Also just wanted to cover - since you're here, since we do elections and politics - so at my latest count, I believe there are 36 declared candidates for Seattle City Council across all of the districts. That is a big number - and there are a lot of people at this point in time. A lot fewer people have qualified for Democracy Vouchers. I think we're gonna get an update on Monday perhaps to see who else may have qualified. But out of everyone, it looks like in District 1, Preston Anderson and Rob Saka have completed the Democracy Voucher qualifying process. In District 2, Tammy Morales has qualified for Democracy Vouchers. In District 3, Joy Hollingsworth and Alex Hudson have completed the qualifying process. In District 4, Ron Davis as well as Kenneth Wilson have completed the qualifying process. In District 5, no one has at this point in time via the publicly available information on the Democracy Voucher website. In District 6, Dan Strauss, the incumbent, has completed the qualifying process - as has incumbent Andrew Lewis in District 7. Those are all of the people who have been reported as successfully qualifying for Democracy Vouchers - obviously a big gate and necessary accomplishment for a campaign. But there are a lot who are in a lot of different positions. There is a sea of candidates. So I guess I'll just open it up to you on your thoughts - about anyone in particular, or this crop of candidates overall, and what this means for the City of Seattle. [00:34:53] Riall Johnson: I think it was - did you say 36? I think 49 ran last - four years ago. I think there was more open seats. I think there was only one incumbent. Debora Juarez was the only incumbent running. So now we only have two - no, three incumbents this time with Tammy, Dan, and Lewis. I used to work with Dan by the way - we were coworkers long time ago. [00:35:23] Crystal Fincher: Really? [00:35:23] Riall Johnson: Yeah, for the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. I'm a fan of Dan Strauss - personally. I disagree with him a lot, but a fan of Dan. But either way, this year is gonna be weird 'cause 2019 - going off 2019 - it was a big rally for progressive and it was a big progressive wave there, especially when Amazon dropped that million dollar bomb at the end, on top of the million dollars they already spent through the Chamber. I think this is gonna be interesting. I'm a big fan of Tammy, obviously - she's a client, or former client - I'm not doing any elections this year. So I don't think - she doesn't even need help. She was one of the best campaigners I've ever seen, so I think she's going to - she'll win on her own. She's gonna win. I think she's got - working with somebody, she's in good hands - but I don't see anyone beating Tammy. And in terms of the other races, it's just gonna be weird to see - they're not gonna have this narrative about fighting Amazon and stuff 'cause Amazon actually learned, the Chamber learned to step out of it and then distribute their money through other channels. They're still gonna put the same amount of money - they're just gonna put it so it's harder to track. So I encourage people to just look - you can still find it - look where the money's going. Look where it's going - they're gonna go through another entity. They're gonna distribute through other different donors. They're still gonna be backing the people. So just look where all the rich people, the same donors you see every year putting behind their own corporate police candidates. And you're gonna see that. And then that's gonna tell you all you really need to know - who's in what. 'Cause the thing is this is what - it always irks me about Seattle and a lot of cities nationwide, but especially Seattle - a lot of these races actually in the end are irrelevant unless you get a really super majority. The whole narrative of Seattle being this progressive place is false. Seattle has no income tax. It's a libertarian utopia, in my opinion. But they blame all their problems on a Brown woman named Kshama because she's the only socialist in there. If you're outside of Seattle or the narrative, thinks like Kshama runs the City. No, there's no way any city council member can run the City. The mayor runs the city. And we've had a corporate mayor for the last 46 out of 50 years, I think. The only mayor that actually did anything progressive was Mike McGinn. And it's funny - you look at the stats, you look at the homelessness rate after 2013 - it's gone up pretty - a whole lot since 2013. [00:38:11] Crystal Fincher: As has the crime rate. [00:38:12] Riall Johnson: Exactly. [00:38:14] Crystal Fincher: I think it was lower - McGinn enjoyed the lowest crime rates in the last 40 years, which - he would be the first person to tell you - were not only because of his policies, he did benefit from policies from Greg Nickels also. But numbers don't lie. [00:38:34] Riall Johnson: Yeah, and we stopped investing in housing overall. And the City - and even if the City Council gives and puts money in housing, it's not like - they just give you the money or approve it, the mayor's got to execute it. And Jenny - I remember seeing Jenny Durkan literally just declined to use the money in any sort of way. She promised a 1,000 or 10,000 tiny homes or whatever - she built a hundred. It's - we got the corporate mayor we've asked for - the Chamber's got their candidate for the last two decades, or the last decade. They got Murray, they got Jenny, they got Tim what's-his-name? The guy who was council for - [00:39:10] Crystal Fincher: Briefly, Tim Burgess. [00:39:11] Riall Johnson: Tim Burgess. Bruce Harrell twice now. And it's gonna go the same way every time. As long as you get a mayor that can't do anything unless they get approval from their corporate overlords - we all call it - we're gonna have this problem all the time, no matter who we elect to City Council. So Tammy's gonna win. Everyone else that I see on the table is just gonna be - is some semi-progressive right now that's just gonna go with the status quo. And she's probably gonna be a lone voice, lonely voice on that council. And then she's now gonna start getting the blame because they can't - they're not gonna have Kshama to blame anymore. And so it's gonna be sad to see all problems - even though it's like you got the mayor you wanted, you got the city council candidates you wanted - you're not gonna have Kshama, you're not gonna have Teresa, all you're gonna have is Tammy. And somehow Tammy's gonna be - they're gonna try and blame Tammy for the - all the problems they have when they've caused it. So it's just, it's gonna be funny to watch this after the election, but in terms of who I see - I just don't, I'm sorry - I'm not paying attention enough, but I don't see anyone outside of Tammy Morales that kind of fits my - what I wanna see in a councilmember. That's my biased opinion, so - as much as I love, I like Dan Strauss as a person, and I think he's better than the person that's challenged him obviously. Me and Dan would have disagreements face-to-face if we met, if we saw, if I saw him again. I just don't see it. I see - either you have to get a major majority of veto-proof votes constantly that's going to actually defund the police, that's actually going to provide housing, that's actually going to fund transit. We're gonna be in this cycle over and over and over as long as we have a mayor that refuses to actually do the things and is beholden to the large corporations we have here in Seattle. So I don't see - I see these elections as inconsequential, somewhat irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. They're important, obviously - you want the support, but the one city councilmember in your district is one-ninth of about 15% of power in the City. That's how much the city council pretty much has - 15-20% of the power. The rest of the 80-90% is the mayor's office. And that's - but the overall narrative - it's hard to get that across 'cause you watch local news, you watch Fox News or cable news, you think this radical socialist Brown woman is running Seattle because that's who they put on the face of it. Never smiling, always with her mouth open yelling - when you, if you meet Kshama, she's the nicest person possible, she's always smiling. But they always want to get it - it's just funny how that narrative is painted on these things. And same with Tammy - they're going to put Tammy on there with - it's typical misogynistic stuff you see with - they always put her with - as she's speaking and then they get her at the worst moment possible with her mouth open. And they're going to do this over and over and over to put the blame on them so they can avoid accountability. [00:42:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is - that trope basically is well-worn. And they do like to pick a favorite progressive person to pick on - that's a lot of P's, but anyway - for me, I need to get more familiar with a lot of candidates, certainly. But I think I'm with you just on the - I'm, I can't say across the board, 'cause there have been a couple that I have heard some conclusive opinions on - taking away almost whether or not I agree with people on issues, it is just hard in this crop to find people really saying where they stand on it. And again, certainly there have been a few who have, but it seems like the majority is afraid to say anything. And to your point that the candidates who have been favored by the Chamber and corporate interests, those candidates for mayor have won for the past decade. And there is no one who has any more power in the City than the mayor. The City Council, to your point, can fund things and can direct policy. But it provides the funding - it actually can't spend that money itself. That is up to the executive. The executive has to spend the money. They manage and implement all of the things in the City. Every department answers to the mayor, including the police department - and what happens there is completely the mayor's responsibility. That is the executive, that is the person with the most power. And it feels like that goes by the wayside because there has been a person on the council that they've been able to demonize from the progressive side that - it reminds me just of conversations about racism or sexism or anti-trans messaging where it's like - simultaneously, the people who you're railing against are somehow deficient in their eyes, but also so smart and powerful and numerous that they can do everything and every bad thing is their fault. And there's this big magical conspiracy that is happening that people are, I guess, communicating telepathically to coordinate all of the horrible things that as conservatives would say, liberals want. But it's just - yeah, I don't know. I don't know. I'm not quite inspired by the crop of candidates, but I think it's just - you're gonna have to decide to do something. And we're at the point where we've had now 10 years worth of really mayors painting themselves as the adult in the room, the people who can bring together people who disagree, and bring everyone together and figure out where people agree and can make progress. And that's just messaging to excuse people not taking action. That has not materialized. What that equates to in practice is just gridlock and nothing happening. And I think we're seeing the result of nothing happening for so long. This is why so many - homelessness has skyrocketed, income inequality is skyrocketing - continuing to do so - so many of the things that we have labeled crises have only gotten worse because the people who said that they were gonna bring everyone together and stop making people mad, like those divisive progressives - it turns out you do have to make a decision at some point. And if you don't, the bad thing continues to happen and that happens. And I think lots of people are at the point with Bruce Harrell - you've made lots of promises that sound great. It seems like you forgot about some of those promises and other of those promises are running like late, way behind schedule. Maybe you changed your mind. Maybe that was just rhetoric. But you said things and we want to see you deliver, and we're waiting. [00:46:45] Riall Johnson: Yes. We'll see what Backroom Bruce does in the next two years, which - we'll see. I've met Bruce - actually he's a nice guy, charismatic guy - he wins people over pretty easily. And actually I turned him down. I couldn't do it. 'Cause it's just - you can't, I just can't give in to corporate interests like that. This is the thing - I don't know how much time more we've got 'cause this is - I'm going back to 2019 and my experience. And this is a problem that needs to be said in Seattle about the progressive left - the power players in the progressive left - they don't want change either. They just want power. And if anyone's listening, they can see - I think I have it on my pinned tweet back in 2019 - the problem I saw and I identified it. And I burned a lot of bridges saying this out public. And I'll say it again though, 'cause it needs to be called out. There was a big movement behind progressive candidates. "Progressive candidates." They put about a million dollars behind six candidates for the open seats. There was three white candidates and three candidates of color. They put over $900,000 behind the white candidates and about $23,000 total behind the candidates of color - 18 of that 23,000 went to Tammy. The other 2,000 each went to Kshama and Shaun Scott - it was a literal direct correlation of skin color by who got more money. And they spent more money against Mark Solomon - Tammy's candidate, who was also Black, a Black man - than spending more money for Shaun. That's how anti-Black the Seattle left is. Seattle is 6% black. 20 years ago, it was 13% Black. So somehow this pro-Black, equitable, progressive city has been systematically kicking Black people out of this city for the last 20 years. And I'm one of them. So it's just - it's a false narrative, I think, to think that there's people who claim to be for this. And you'll literally see in Seattle where someone will have a sign saying, "In this house, Black Lives Matter, love is love," blah, blah, blah, all that stuff. And then right next to it, literally it'll say, "Don't rezone this property, make it so historic." Like it's all platitudes I see. And I see it not just with voters, but I see it with the people in power - the people in the "progressive" movements that actually have the money, and they don't put their money where the mouth is. There's never a movement supported by this. They don't put the money behind actual progressive candidates, or abolitionists, or whatever. They just talk the talk. They put all this money behind Dan Strauss, Andrew Lewis, and Lisa Herbold - and they all waffled on all their votes. They didn't do anything. They just did middle of the road stuff. But meanwhile, the candidates that actually were pushing for real progressive transformative policies, like Shaun Scott, Kshama Sawant, and Tammy Morales - they didn't support that way. And the reason - I burned bridges - I'll burn them again, I'll burn the ships. 'Cause it needs to be said. And it needs to be - look where the money's going, and you'll see where people stand. And the funny thing is we just - and this is why you see a lot of these candidates, even this year, waffling on stuff. They're coming out middle of the road. They say they're progressive. They come from progressive organizations that are well-funded, and they're not taking proper stands because they're scared to - because the organizations that support them are scared to as well. So I think this needs to be said and needs to be called out - until we have some real progressive candidates that can stand on their own and stand against even their own backers, like the unions and the progressive organizations that - I'm not gonna name names, I've already done that. But they know who I'm talking about and they know I'm talking about them, and I don't care. But the thing is we need candidates that will do that, and we need more communities to stand up against that, and fight on their own. And it's very hard to do that because - ultimately, you're turning away resources - because these are well-resourced organizations as well and progressive organizations. And it's hard to do that without resources. And once - when you do that, you gotta realize you're gonna be on your own and you're gonna have to do this on just pure human power - with a little bit of money. And just - and I guess, hopefully vouchers - on a minimal budget, that you could, that hopefully you can win by. [00:51:42] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for all of your insight today, Riall Burn the Ships Johnson. Appreciate your insight and reflections and perspective. And with that, I thank everyone for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, April 7th - it's April 7th already - 2023. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful cohost today is Principal Partner at Prism West, Riall Johnson. You can find Riall on Twitter @RiallJohnson, that's R-I-A-L-L Johnson. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. And you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your feed. If you like us, leave a review. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett!  During this Seattle-centric episode, they discuss Mayor Bruce Harrell's State of the City speech, the SDOT Vision Zero report about traffic safety, the passage of first in the nation caste legislation, what's next for social housing, questions from the oversight board for the scope of King County Regional Homelessness Authority's five-year plan, an increase in violence against unsheltered people, and the outlook for downtown Seattle. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Erica Barnett, at @ericacbarnett. Resources The State of the City is Vibes by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola  In State of the City, Seattle Mayor Harrell emphasizes crime, downtown by Sarah Grace Taylor from Seattle Times Vision Zero | Our top-to-bottom review provides a roadmap and new actions to reverse challenging trends in traffic safety by Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle must do more to prevent traffic deaths, report says by David Kroman from Seattle Times Councilmember Tammy Morales responds to the release of SDOT's vision zero review: "this report stops short of calling for dramatic or swift action to combat the unprecedented number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities on our streets, particularly in District 2.” by Tammy Morales on Twitter Seattle becomes the first city to ban caste discrimination by Lilly Ana Fowler from KNKX Opinion: Confessions of an American Caste Traitor by Prashant Nema from South Seattle Emerald What's next now that Seattle's Social Housing Developer initiative has passed by Capitol Hill Seattle Study: Human Service Wages Are Even Worse Than You Imagined by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola  Violence Against Unsheltered People Spikes, Social Housing Moves Into Startup Mode by Publicola Plan to Eliminate Visible Homelessness Downtown is “Clearly Behind Schedule,” but Backers Remain Optimistic by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola  Oversight Board Questions Price Tag, Exclusion of Tiny Houses from Homeless Agency's Five-Year Plan by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola  As Downtown recovers, Seattle reimagines what it could be by Josh Cohen from Crosscut  #ThePostman - D'Vonne Pickett Jr. Memorialized With Street Sign in the Central District by Cesar Canizales from Converge Media Qualified Immunity Bill Passes Key Hurdle as Other Criminal Justice Reforms Stall Out by Andrew Engelson from Publicola Transcript   [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:11] Erica Barnett: Hi, Crystal. Great to be here. [00:01:13] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. I want to start off talking about an annual event that happens in the City of Seattle every year - the State of the City address by Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. What did he say and what was your impression of his State of the City speech? [00:01:31] Erica Barnett: As I said in my headline and a story I wrote about this, the message that I got from it was vibes. What I mean by that is it was a lot of positive talk about the future of the city - everything's looking brighter - the future of the city is bright, optimism, innovation, Downtown that's going to be wonderful for everyone. But a lot of what he actually proposed or said he's going to do in the coming year, which is the point of the State of the City speech, was either stuff that he promised in his first State of the City speech last year or sort of small scale stuff - white papers, activation plans, executive orders, and a vision for the future of public safety - which is basically what he said last year as well. So not a lot of substance - quite a lot of fluff and good vibes talk - which resonated really well in the room, I have to say. It felt like a good speech, but when you read the words or paid attention to them at the time, there just wasn't a whole lot there. [00:02:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I think one thing - and you called this out also in your article, I think - is that especially on the heels of Mayor Jenny Durkan, who was not the most charismatic mayor that we've ever had and didn't particularly seem to enjoy the job, Bruce brings charisma to his speeches, to his interactions with people - and that goes a long way to building goodwill, at least in the reception of what he's saying. The vibes feel good, but as you said, it wasn't packed with substantive promises, goals, but there were a few that were included in there. What did those include? [00:03:17] Erica Barnett: Yeah. So he said - so I mentioned this "downtown activation plan" - so reading between the lines, he talked about how great it is that Amazon is forcing people to come back to work, essentially - which a lot of them are not very happy with - but saying that as everybody returns to work and downtown kind of returns somewhat to normal, we're going to activate it, there's going to be new small businesses and storefronts, art spaces, possibly - and again, this gets into kind of the vague part - he kept saying may, possibly, maybe we'll have an arts corridor, a 24/7 street, this kind of vision of downtown, but yeah, as far as concrete actions, he says there'll be a plan. He also said there's going to be a new executive order about fentanyl and other synthetic drugs. Again, executive order - I don't know what that - that can mean a range of things. It's not the same thing as legislation. And then he says that he's going to propose a suite of legislation to hire more officers and release a vision for the future of public safety, which again - I think that what that actually translates to, particularly on the recruitment side - is they're going to hire a marketing manager who's going to do some ads. He mentioned digital ads aimed at Gen Z trying to get more younger recruits, but yeah - again, really, I'm really reaching to find substance because there just wasn't a lot of it there. [00:04:44] Crystal Fincher: There was not - it doesn't appear - did he say anything about the planned public safety department that has been talked about for a year now? [00:04:55] Erica Barnett: Oh, yeah. So that was another thing that he talked about in his first State of the City speech. He said within the year, we'll have a plan for this department - and I don't remember the exact language or whether there's anything solid there - but this year, a year later, he's saying that pretty soon there's going to be a white paper that sort of lays out what this department might look like. I think that that's a really good example of something where - he does not deliver on that third department, which is supposed to be a kind of non-police public safety response department. It does have a name, which is the CARE Department, the Civilian Assisted Response and Engagement Department - so they've gotten that done. But if he doesn't deliver on that this year, I think there's going to be some pushback, maybe, for not actually accomplishing all these lofty goals. It's been more than a year and he hasn't delivered on it yet, but a white paper is, allegedly, coming. [00:05:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think a lot of people are definitely looking forward to the white paper as a precursor to further action. Hopefully, certainly people want to stand up responses that are appropriate to the type of call that are coming, and there seems to be a broad recognition - because of the creation of this department and certainly by the residents - that a variety of different types of responses are needed. Having a cop with a gun show up to every single circumstance doesn't make sense, and certainly with the staffing challenges that they say they have doesn't seem to be the wisest thing. So it looks like we're going to stay tuned for the white paper. How that translates to actual action and creating this department and getting this off of the ground, which they have been talking about, remains to be seen. [00:06:45] Erica Barnett: And I will say the white paper was supposed to be out last year. It was - the deadline was fourth quarter - the sort of loose deadline was fourth quarter of last year, so it's late. [00:06:54] Crystal Fincher: That seems to be a recurring theme, but we will continue to pay attention with eagerness and an open mind to see what actually happens. Another long-awaited report this week was the Vision Zero report that was just released yesterday. What is this and what did it say? [00:07:14] Erica Barnett: Yeah, speaking of things that are behind schedule - this was supposed to come out last year and got delayed. It was billed as a top-to-bottom review of Vision Zero, which is the plan to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2030. It is titled the Top-to-Bottom Review of Vision Zero, which I find funny just because it's so literal. But what does it say? Basically it says the City has taken a lot of great actions to try to reduce traffic deaths and where it hasn't been able to take actions, it has tried really hard. It's a defensive report in a lot of ways - blaming other agencies, blaming the state and the fact that the state has control over a lot of our streets like Aurora, and then outlining a bunch of different steps that the City could take in the future to try to reduce deaths and serious injuries, most of which I should say are pretty underwhelming. There's a top five list that includes stuff like phasing in an unknown number of additional "No Turn on Red" signs downtown in time for tourist season - and I'm quoting here, "in time for tourist season and the Major League Baseball All-Star game." Another one is to accelerate leading pedestrian intervals, which is where if you approach an intersection, the light will turn for pedestrian first so you can start crossing before cars start coming. So we're going to do more of that. So it's a lot of - let's do a little more of the things that we're already doing and maybe that'll work. Nothing particularly bold in terms of things like street design that allows cars to drive, or for people to drive as fast as they do - mostly focused on individual behavior, automated traffic enforcement, that sort of stuff, but no real big bold vision here. [00:09:08] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I was a little bit surprised by its billing as a top-to-bottom review, and that doesn't seem to be necessarily what we received. It seemed to be a review of things that they were doing - and I don't know if I want to say avoidance - but not necessarily on focusing on many things that as you said, weren't already planned. There was not an analysis, as Ryan Packer pointed out on Twitter, of what was the impact of reducing speed limits. Was that helpful? Was that not helpful? That was certainly done as part of the Vision Zero program. Also as you said, there seemed to be no focus on road design, which has so much to do with whether or not it's possible for drivers and cars to even get into those dangerous situations. I saw Councilmember Tammy Morales released a statement calling out the same thing that you did - Hey, this seems to lack design features. She said that she would be helping identify some of the missing money to finish going after grant money to implement projects that had already been planned, but that were in jeopardy or delayed because they did not have the funding. But also it seemed like there was a lack of recognition of just the severity of the problem. You just pointed out - Hey, we want to have this done basically for tourist attractions - while every day we are seeing people being killed and maimed by these pedestrian collisions. And so it just doesn't seem like there was the kind of urgency or thoroughness. And maybe this was something where - hey, they started this and there was a limited scope. They realized it was a problem later on and the report didn't quite get there? Seems like they should have realized this has been a problem for quite some time, given all of the discussion around it. But left a lot of people wanting, I think. What are you looking forward to seeing come out of this? [00:11:08] Erica Barnett: I hope that SDOT will listen to some of the feedback. Just looking through the summary report, which is the one with more graphics and stuff, it just feels like - and again, this was late, so they spent extra time on it, or waited to release it - but it just feels like a book report that somebody did at the last minute before it was due. There's data in here that goes all the way back to 2011 - the 25 mph issue that you were mentioning. So it says, Oh, it does, 25 mph is good and here's how we know - it's data from 2018. Data from 2018 is now almost five years old and that is before the City actually implemented more widespread 25 mph speed limits. So I don't know, did it do anything? Did we study that? Are we studying that? There's just so much missing information in here. And I'll just reiterate - in this 22 pages, a chart is repeated twice. I don't know if anybody copy edited it, if that was intentional. There are two pages that are just a graphic and a big - a blue field. It just, it feels like - and do those things matter? I don't know. It makes it feel like there's a lot of filler in here. And when you look at the content, it's just really like back patting - let's do more of the same and that'll maybe make things better, and blame for why they can't do certain things. [00:12:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I don't think this is egregious in terms of the report and how it's put together, but I think people are feeling particularly frustrated because this is an emergency. This is a crisis. This is something impacting the health and wellbeing of so many residents, and so many others are at risk, by just the design of the roads and the community. And so it just feels like maybe it wasn't done, or it's not conveying the urgency of the situation, and really conveying that they are planning to do everything they can to reduce this for the residents that live here now, not the tourists coming into town. I know that SDOT and the City has plenty of people who care, who I'm sure are balancing issues of funding and staffing and prioritization. So what I don't want to do is imply that everybody involved with this is careless and doesn't - I think that a lot of people care very deeply about this. But it does come to prioritization - from the executive on down - and maybe there's a tension between what people know is helpful and right to do and what is actually being authorized and funded. And the people pushing for accountability have been pushing on those meaningful levers beyond rhetoric, saying - Okay, what is actually going to be done? What is being built, revised? Let's put this into action. So eager to see the issues that they identified get into practice and hopefully this is definitely a springboard for more. And I think the way they characterized it was also - these actions to build momentum towards further actions with the first five things that I think they identified. So we'll continue to pay attention. [00:14:14] Erica Barnett: One of the action plans in this, which I thought was an action plan - one of the actions is to create an action plan. And it's - Okay, wait, I thought that this was supposed to be the action plan. When is the action plan coming? So I don't know how long people are willing to wait for an action plan since this top-to-bottom review took all the way into February, more than a year into Harrell's term. So we'll see. [00:14:36] Crystal Fincher: It feels a lot like the infamous Seattle process, but we will see. One thing that happened that made national headlines this week was the passing of first-in-the-nation caste legislation led by Councilmember Sawant - what does this do and why did it happen? [00:14:56] Erica Barnett: Essentially, it adds a caste to the list of protected classes in the City's anti-discrimination laws. So those laws protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability, etc - and so it adds caste to that list. And the concern as I understand it, and I did not cover this story myself, but is - there is in fact caste discrimination among, against people of South Asian descent, particularly in the tech sector. And that this is a problem that was brought to Councilmember Sawant - and she proposes legislation, which as you said, is getting national and international coverage because it's the first of its kind in the US. [00:15:37] Crystal Fincher: It is. And it didn't pass without some pushback and controversy. What were detractors of the legislation saying? [00:15:46] Erica Barnett: There was quite a bit of controversy. And again, I'm going to do this - I'm going to explain this at a very high level because I'm a little out of my depth and I don't want to misstate anything - but the controversy revolved around whether this was discriminatory against Hindus in America, because it calls out that caste discrimination among Hindu castes and against people in lower castes. And so there was opposition from a Hindu American saying that it'd create a discriminatory system. There was also opposition on the City Council itself from the one person who voted against it - Councilmember Sara Nelson, who said essentially that it was unnecessary, agreed with some of the arguments against it, and also said that it would open the City to litigation and she didn't want to take that risk. [00:16:29] Crystal Fincher: And she was notably the only councilmember to vote against that - all of the others present did. I will say - I appreciate the conversation that this legislation has opened up. Certainly I have done a lot of learning around this issue - was not up to speed and familiar, still not completely, but it does highlight how many things that can seem invisible and innocuous to people who are not familiar with this - just as covered in some of the articles and coverage about this, just questions like, Hey, do you eat meat? That may seem innocent and unproblematic to people who are listening to that - can be very impactful and discriminatory in this context. So I appreciate the opportunity to learn more. And this has been covered and lauded across the country, really, and covered in international papers. So certainly groundbreaking legislation led by Councilmember Sawant. Also this week, we saw continuing coverage of the winning social housing legislation, which I'm still personally excited about - the opportunities that this unlocks and also just starting to figure this whole thing out. I'm sure it's not going to happen without some bumps and bruises along the way, but that's how new legislation and new programs and implementations work. What is next in the implementation process for social housing? [00:17:56] Erica Barnett: So I talked to both of the proponents, Real Change and House Our Neighbors, as well as former House Speaker State Rep Frank Chopp, about this. And what's happening in the immediate term is Chopp - in the Legislature session that's going on now - is trying to get funding to basically pay for the agency's first 18 months or so of operations, the new public developer. The City of Seattle is obligated to provide in-kind assistance, but of course they have their own budget challenges and so this would essentially provide state funding through the budget to get them up and running and allow them to set up a taxing proposal, which then might have to go before the voters again - in yet another initiative - if it is a local tax. Chopp also said, when we talked, that there could be some state options - like there's an expansion that's being proposed of a real estate excise tax that would create sort of a new tier of taxing for property sales over $5 million. And there's a local option there that could be used for social housing, he said. There's a number of different possibilities that they're considering, but they've got 18 months to figure that out and potentially get something on the ballot and pass to actually pay for the housing. [00:19:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And there's also going to be a board established and some hires made. What will that process look like? [00:19:19] Erica Barnett: They're making a couple of hires. So that would be - that's something that $750,000-800,000 would pay for is - I believe it's an Executive Director and a Chief Operating Officer. And then the board is going to be made up of 13 people - 7 of them would be appointed by the City's Renters' Commission. And then it's - the other 6 are appointed by various folks - the mayor, the City Council, and some other local groups with housing expertise. And that board - Tammy Morales is spearheading getting that process rolling. And then the board starts meeting and starts discussing all these things that we're talking about - how to move forward. They're going to be the decision makers. And ultimately, that's a temporary board. Assuming housing does get built, there's going to be a new board that's going to be made up mostly of people who actually rent in the buildings. But that's a few steps down the line. [00:20:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we will continue to follow the implementation, follow what's happening with this. But that initiative is passing, will become official - I actually forget the day that the election is certified - but coming up here soon. [00:20:21] Erica Barnett: I think it's today, February 24th - if not, it's Monday. [00:20:23] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Yeah - excellent. Thank you - I'm like, it's around now, but so it will be officially official soon. Again, just bang up work to the people doing that and looking at how many of the volunteers are pivoting now to the Renton minimum wage initiative that is happening. I'm just excited about what organizers are doing in the region to try and help improve the everyday lives of folks. Also this week, we saw some King County Regional Homelessness Authority meetings - discussion about their scope and budget moving forward. What were those conversations? [00:21:05] Erica Barnett: Yeah. The regional authority has released its five-year plan and it's in a draft form - it's going to be finalized, I believe, in April. And it's a somewhat novel approach to doing an implementation plan for an agency. Basically what they've done is created a plan that would end unsheltered homelessness within five years and at huge cost. You've probably discussed this on Hacks & Wonks before, but the price tag is in the billions per year plus billions more for capital costs to set up shelters and other types of temporary housing. And there's been pushback from - everyone from Councilmember Andrew Lewis in Seattle, to regional leaders, to Claudia Balducci from the King County Council, to Mayor Bruce Harrell saying - This is a nice aspirational plan, but we can't even come close to actually doing this. Just one year's worth of funding for this plan is two City budgets. There's been pushback about whether this is realistic, can we start smaller? And it's almost like the opposite of the Vision Zero plan - it's too ambitious in some ways - some would argue. I think the agency would argue that it's not too ambitious, it's just realistic. But there is a gap between reality on the ground right now, in terms of the agency's funding and reality as they define it, which is we need to spend these billions of dollars to actually address the problem. [00:22:31] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we actually have a conversation with the head of the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, Marc Dones, coming up on this week's midweek show where we go into that in a little bit more detail and why that's necessary, what that's comprised of. But I think there is a big conversation to be had. They're saying that they need more federal dollars and support, that there needs to be a lot more financially. I think they're really saying - Hey, now that we have gotten staffed up, have started to implement the plan, and we're doing some targeted things that are working - it's time to scale this up. And the real conversation seems to be, can we afford to scale it up? And if not, where does that leave us and what do we do? So that'll be interesting - to see how this conversation unfolds, and how cities view their contribution to this regional solution, and their individual responsibilities within their city - how they balance that and what types of approaches they move forward with. But it does seem like there are some things that are working and that are positive that should be, hopefully will be expanded. Certainly I think most people agree that the job is not done, more needs to be done. And so what is enough is really going to be part of a conversation. And people who are elected are going to have to stand up for what they've advocated for and what they're saying to attempt to address the challenges here. But it'll be interesting to see. Also in related troubling news, we got more evidence and information about violence against unsheltered people. What did we learn? [00:24:10] Erica Barnett: This is really troubling. The issue of homelessness and the issue of public safety are often conflated, with people saying that having homeless encampments nearby is unsafe for nearby children, people living in houses nearby. But in reality, the people who are most vulnerable in living in encampments are the people in the encampments themselves. So a new crime report from SPD showed a 229% increase in hate crimes, specifically targeting homeless people because they're homeless. Police Chief Adrian Diaz told me that this is an example of people "taking things into their own hands" because they're frustrated with encampments existing in their presence and the associated litter and perceived just disorder that goes with that - they've been attacking more homeless people. Additionally, there's been more gun violence deaths involving people who are homeless. So it's incredibly dangerous to be homeless and it's becoming more dangerous. And I think this gets lost in conversations about whether violent crime is up or whether property crime is up. A lot of these victims are people experiencing homelessness themselves. And I really think that gets lost in narratives about homeless people being inherently dangerous or a threat to neighborhoods. [00:25:25] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And it has been a chronic problem, has led to them specifically being targeted, dehumanizing language around them. And certainly regionally, we've seen a lot of direct attacks on their - I'm thinking of a couple in Tacoma right now where people went in there because of narratives about them being criminals, going in to find stolen property, and it winds up with violence - but without that stolen property. It's a challenge, and I hope we understand how vulnerable that population is and we follow the data and evidence about what seems to be effective in addressing those issues. Certainly we hear a lot about downtown Seattle. And there was an article this week, and continued conversations that we have in the region, in the wake of Amazon announcing that they are recalling people back to the office on at least a part-time basis and requiring people work from the office, which Mayor Bruce Harrell applauded and said was a good thing. But the state of downtown, the state of the central business district - should it be and remain and should we try and invest resources in keeping it predominantly a business district? Or are people really looking for something else? What was your take on that article and on the conversation about what we should be doing with downtown? [00:26:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, it's been really interesting to see the backlash among Amazon employees themselves to this idea that they are - to not the idea - to the mandate that they go back to work three days a week. The City, of course, has a two day a week mandate that is observed by some and ignored by some, I would say. And I think that the State of the City speech actually highlighted this kind of dichotomy that you're talking about, because on the one hand, Harrell said, It's great that Amazon is coming back downtown and we're going to have this dynamic downtown that returns to normal again. And at the same time, he was saying - maybe, in that list of maybes that he had - Maybe what downtown looks like is going to be different, and we'll have housing in some of these office spaces and other types of businesses in the retail spaces. And so I think that we're still figuring that out. But I just do not believe that we're going to return to the way it was before, because I think a lot of people have realized that they're more productive at home, they've realized that not getting paid for a long commute that is essentially unnecessary to doing their job feels unfair. And there's a whole lot of reasons that people liked working from home during the pandemic - people who have caregiving responsibilities have had a lot more flexibility to do that stuff. And primarily, we're talking about women with those responsibilities. So I don't think it's going to work to just say - everybody has to come back to the way it used to be. We also have a tight labor market, so forcing workers who can leave and take other jobs to do something like come back to downtown Seattle is not going to work in the short term for sure. [00:28:30] Crystal Fincher: And this is being lauded because some people are saying, Great, this is going to be great for businesses downtown revitalizing, re-energizing downtown Seattle in this circumstance and situation - because foot traffic, as measured by downtown employees, has been down under 50% to what it was pre-pandemic levels. And although hotels have seen basically a return to pre-pandemic level activity from people traveling, visiting - they are not seeing that in terms, or coming from workers. And so it seems like there are a number of signals from the public saying, Okay, downtown should have another purpose besides just a place that people commute to and from to work. And that comes with its own challenges and that - it's long been a problem. Even in terms of just public safety and having safe activated spaces - meaning spaces where people are at - it's not like you're in a desolate, barren area after 7, 8 PM and people have left for the day. There's not that much going on in the core of downtown. Also more people live downtown now than have ever before - thousands more people than at the beginning of the pandemic. And just basic things like childcare and just some basic things to have and raise a family are missing in downtown and people need to go to other neighborhoods. And it seems like people are looking to downtown Seattle and a lot of other downtowns to fulfill desires for culture and community a lot more now, or to a much greater degree than they were before, where it was just business. And so re-imagining or reconstituting downtowns where maybe driving to the office every day is not the main draw - seems like that has to be a focus for the future or else downtown is going to get left behind. How do you see that? [00:30:29] Erica Barnett: Yeah. This is a conversation that has been going on for almost as long as I have lived here, or actually probably longer, about downtown. Especially - when I moved here more than 20 years ago - downtown really shut down at night. And I'm downtown at night a fair amount - I think that the sort of tumbleweeds idea that downtown just turns into, rolls up the blinds or whatever the saying is - it's not that - at 5 o'clock, it's not - that's exaggerated. There are people downtown now, especially Belltown bleeds into South Lake Union - there's stuff going on. But the thing is, we've been saying for decades now and more intensely lately, I think with the pandemic, that downtown needs to have a different focus and different reasons for people being there other than office work. And yet, we still have, again, a mayor saying maybe that's something that should happen. If you're the mayor, or you're a City leader, there are things you can actually do to make it affordable for childcare to be downtown. And I won't go into all the different mechanisms for stuff like that, because it's pretty boring. But the only thing the mayor mentioned was changing zoning codes to allow housing - and actually housing is already allowed everywhere downtown. What you need to do is provide incentives and money to make it possible to convert office buildings into housing, because that's not going to happen by just saying, Maybe it should. And so we just haven't seen action on these things. And it actually does take action and money and spending to make some of these things happen. Childcare is not going to materialize because we wish it into existence. Neither are art spaces, all these things - we have to take action, there have to be grant programs, there has to be actual legislation and priorities and spending - because we can't just wish it into existence. It hasn't worked so far. And it's not going to work now. [00:32:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree with that. Lots of talk about activating spaces, vacant storefronts. I think he did say that there was going to be a pilot, or actually not even a pilot, a competition to kick off innovation for how to convert commercial spaces into residential spaces - which has its share of complications and isn't necessarily simple and straightforward, can be done. But it does seem like we're in the beginning stages and just dipping our toe in the water a little bit with a number of these things instead of taking concrete action, which I think a lot of people would be eager to see. So that's another thing we'll continue to stay on top of and see how that unfolds. We do thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 24th, 2023. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and you can find me there also @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or anywhere you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get the full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, long time communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank! They discuss the landmark passage of Seattle's Social Housing Initiative 135, what it says about Seattle voter preferences and expectations of candidates running for local office.  They also discuss the continuing candidate announcements for Seattle City Council, with two moderates announcing their intentions to run this week. Several candidates in the field have avoided sharing their positions on the issues most important to Seattle voters. Crystal and Robert analyze how that may impact their races and what voters are expecting from candidates this year.  In the wake of a pedestrian in a crosswalk being killed by an SPD officer who was responding to an overdose call, Robert and Crystal discuss whether it's appropriate for police to respond to every overdose call in addition to the fire department, especially while the department says they are short-staffed. They also cover the advancing bipartisan legislation that aims to expand the conditions under which police can pursue fleeing vehicles despite their continued harm to innocent bystanders, while Democratic Reps. Reed and Farivar and Sen. Dhingra oppose this bill in favor of an evidence-based approach that prioritizes increased safety for everyone. Robert and Crystal close the show with a discussion of the woeful state of education funding in Washington state. Despite the McCleary decision that affirmed Washington state's paramount constitutional duty to fully fund public education, districts are still relying on levy funding to address existing funding shortfalls and considering closures of schools, while experiencing chronic understaffing in several areas and considering destabilizing school closures. As Robert discussed in The Urbanist op-Ed he wrote, this is a result of legislative inaction on school funding and the taxation of extreme wealth, the failure of all levels of government to address increasingly unaffordable housing, and too many school board directors who are failing to act in the interests of students with urgency.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, at @cruickshank.   Resources Social Housing Is Winning by Rich Smith from The Stranger   Seattle Mayor and Majority of Council Mum on Social Housing by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Who's running for Seattle City Council in 2023 by Melissa Santos from Axios   Andrew Ashiofu Stresses Lived Experience in D3 Seattle Council Pitch by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Tech Lawyer Rob Saka Announces Bid for Seattle City Council District 1 by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   Seattle Subway Leader Efrain Hudnell Announces D3 City Council Bid by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Twitter thread from Rep. Julia Reed (D-36) exposing the fault lines around police pursuit policy    Overdose Patients Can Become Violent”: Fire and Police Respond to Questions About Pedestrian Death by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola   In pursuit of good policy: Washington legislators debate validity of the data used to justify 2021 police reforms by Guy Oron from Real Change   Opinion: Everyone (Especially Urbanists) Should Care About the Crisis Facing Seattle Schools by Robert Cruickshank from The Urbanist   Gov. Inslee weighs in on potential Bellevue school consolidation by Farah Jadran from KING 5   Lawmakers in Olympia narrowing down which bills will move forward by News Staff from KIRO 7   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast - get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, transportation reporter Ryan Packer joined me to discuss regional transportation issues - including our traffic safety crisis, legislative bills and funding, the Washington-Oregon Interstate Bridge Replacement bailout, and the disconnect between and within our regional planning bodies. Today we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's cohost: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and one of the best political strategists on the West Coast, Robert Cruickshank. [00:01:29] Robert Cruickshank: Oh thank you, Crystal, for having me. It's always an honor to be here and a pleasure to talk about all these issues happening locally with what I think is one of the smartest minds in Washington. [00:01:38] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much. I am very excited to talk about our first topic this week - big news locally, regionally, and really nationally. Initiative 135 in the City of Seattle for social housing is passing, will pass. What do you think of this? What will this do? And what does this mean for Seattle? [00:02:02] Robert Cruickshank: As President Biden would say, I think this is a BFD. It, as you said, is watched around the country. There have been state legislators in California, Hawaii, New York, who have commented on this favorably, wanting to bring it to their states too. It is a crucial tool in the toolbox for solving our housing crisis. We need more housing. We need more affordable housing. And places in Europe - Vienna being a notable example - have shown that social housing can help solve that by having a publicly owned and operated system of housing that's available to people at affordable rents and also at middle income rents. And what that does is it helps have the system be self-supporting. And of course, the renters run the place themselves. They're responsible for self-governance, which I think is a huge missing piece that you see in at least American housing, where there's either the owner-occupier or you pay rent to a landlord and you don't really control your own surroundings. This is a great middle solution that works for so many people in the middle, in a city where we're losing our middle class. This is a way for teachers and nurses to be able to stay in Seattle as well as people working in the coffee shops and working in the bear-time industries. It's also, I think, a huge victory for progressives in Seattle. This was not something that was championed by the City. In fact, the City did not want to fund this during the budget process last year. They got no support from established leaders until late in the process, really. This is something that came out of grassroots organizing - it started as a response to Charter Initiative 29 back in 2021, which was an attack on homeless folks. And a group of organizers led by Tiffani McCoy thought - let's do something better. Let's put a competing initiative on the ballot to actually solve this - that evolved into the social housing initiative. I also think it's a huge, huge defeat for The Seattle Times. There was no official No campaign. There was no well-funded organization or effort trying to stop this, so The Seattle Times became the de facto No campaign. Their editorials against it were the things that you'd hear on the doorsteps or on the phones when you're talking to undecided voters - who would cite those talking points - so they were easily debunked. But The Times really went all out to try to stop this from happening, and they lost in a low turnout election in February. I think a lot of people wouldn't have been surprised had this failed - thinking it's February, not enough progressive folks show up, maybe if it had been on the November ballot, it might have passed. But it's passing by a healthy margin now. Once the remaining ballots are counted that margin is almost certainly going to grow. So it's a strong mandate for building more housing and building affordable housing as a solution to our dire housing crisis. [00:05:02] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And the crisis is dire. I think a clear message sent is Seattle residents realize it. It is a crisis and they expect action. And in the absence of action that they were expecting from our local elected officials, who collectively have not done much - done enough, I should say - to address this crisis, they're willing to act themselves. I do want to just highlight and commend the House Our Neighbors coalition, which was the campaign behind this - from getting signatures and qualified on the ballot to passing this initiative - organizing, getting people together. Just really, really appreciate that. Appreciate the role of the King County Democrats played in helping this - I think that's a great model of seeing how local parties can impact their communities and local politics. To your point, this was not supported by really the Democratic establishment, right? This was not a conservative versus progressive issue. This was not a D versus R issue. This is one of those issues that we have seen in Seattle - where you have establishment Democrats versus more progressive, more community-led people. And we've seen that turn out less favorably than this many, many times. And so I just think we're seeing - we saw the Tukwila Initiative succeed, we saw this, we're watching Renton happen right now. We're looking at an era really where the community is coming together and demanding more and expecting more and a big deal. And I think the message that elected officials and candidates need to take away from this is that they're behind where the public is. They are lagging and not understanding the urgency, the desperation, and the fear that so many people have. This was basically characterized by a lot of people as some fringe, super extreme, lefty initiative that lots of people didn't even feel like they needed to pay attention to because they just never took it seriously. And that was a mistake. And these are not wild lefty fringe beliefs - this is the mainstream. We saw in this first count where over just about half of the voters were over 55 years old - we're talking average age approaching 60 in this election - and over half of them wanted to see social housing. We're just in a different era and people need to wake up and smell the coffee here because - as I've said many times before, as have you - voters are expecting action. And especially in the context of so many of these local elections, especially in the City of Seattle, with the number of candidates declaring and being really vague about what they do or don't believe, and trying to not offend people - which has been a recipe for inaction over the past decade - in Seattle politics, definitely. That is at odds with where the entire Seattle electorate is - not just younger people, not just lefties, the entire electorate - and people need to recognize that. [00:08:37] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think that's particularly true of housing where - currently in City Hall, there seems to be an attitude among most, but not everyone, that we have to tread slowly and carefully when it comes to solving the housing crisis. There are some great leaders on the City Council - Tammy Morales, Teresa Mosqueda - who are pretty bold about, we need to use a comprehensive plan to upzone huge swaths of the City. But the rest of the City government seems hesitant. But they're ignoring where the public's at - the polling statewide shows there's 71% support for the missing middle housing bill. That support is also high here in the City of Seattle. And what you're seeing with social housing, which isn't exactly upzones but it's dense housing that will be built for social housing, is strong, strong support for action. There is not anywhere close to a majority - in Seattle at least - among voters for maintaining this single-family, low-rise, low-density NIMBY attitude that seems to predominate certainly among the way the media talks about housing and too often the way the City talks about housing. I think this vote is going to resonate throughout 2023. Obviously, what I-135 did is not fully fund social housing - they weren't able to do that at the same time the initiative for fear of running afoul of the single subject rule. So they went ahead and created the authority, gave a little bit of money to start that authority up. And then they're going to work with the City to try to get it funded. And if City Hall doesn't try to fund construction of social housing, they'll come back to the ballot again. All these council candidates who are declaring in the last few weeks, even the last few days, are going to have to be on the spot now because voters went ahead of them and said, No, we actually want social housing to happen. Now we expect you to deliver. And this is going to be an issue throughout 2023 and all these campaigns, and that's a good thing, right? They're having to now respond to where the public actually is, not responding to a Seattle times narrative of - Oh, people are cranky, they don't want new density, we want NIMBYism everywhere. That's not where the public is at, at all. [00:10:39] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I'm excited to see where this is going to go. I'm excited to see these candidates and elected officials be put on the spot and have to answer. And I'm trying to have some grace - it is early in the campaign cycle, they're working on this stuff - but if this were to continue later in the cycle, as we've seen in previous cycles, there's really an arrogance about it. It's really feeling that you're not accountable to the voters and really being straight with them about what you believe, who you are, what you're doing, or that you have an obligation to act on their behalf, and to deliver on the mandate that they have provided. So I'm eager to see how this continues. I'm eager to see that now that this has passed - we saw Tammy Morales attempt to provide some funding that the rest of the council, many of the rest of the council, did not agree with. But with this new council coming up, assuming Tammy is reelected - is this something that she can lead on and helping to provide funding and making this happen? I just think my final thought on this for now is really another explicit message that Seattle residents expect government to be part of the solution. This is - we hear so many times that - the market needs to take care of itself. We can't step in and do this. This is really big and really problematic - I don't know that government can address this. It has before. It is elsewhere. And if we don't interrupt the cycle of what's currently happening, we're just going to price everyone out of Seattle. We have a lot of people who have been laid off recently, who are fearing being laid off soon, who are making well into the six figures - who are largely saying, We don't know that we can continue to afford to live in Seattle. Even for those who haven't lost their jobs - looking at the prospect of potential instability financially saying, Is this responsible? Do we need to preemptively leave? Because without a massive - making $200,000+ - can you responsibly afford to live in Seattle? It's really a challenging situation that is long past time needing a response to and Seattle residents acting on that. [00:13:05] Robert Cruickshank: And it wasn't that long ago that it was affordable to live here. 10 years ago - housing prices - you could buy a house in Seattle for less than $400,000, three, four bedrooms. You could rent a two bedroom apartment for $1,200 or less. It was relatively affordable. And it just happened rapidly because we hadn't kept up with building enough housing. We hadn't been providing enough affordable housing. And I think voters are fed up. They want their government to act. And I think one of the big takeaways from I-135's passing is - voters are going to solve this if our government doesn't. [00:13:37] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I do want to talk more about the candidates that are running, particularly in the City of Seattle and in King County. We saw a few new announcements this week. Who has thrown their hat in the race and what are they talking about? [00:13:51] Robert Cruickshank: So it feels like January, early February was when the progressive candidates jumped out and we saw people from Maren Costa - who's a climate activist coming out of Amazon, and fought Amazon, was fired by Amazon - running in District 1. A number of great people jumping in in District 3, people like Ron Davis in District 4. But now we're starting to see the empire strike back a little bit. Rob Saka announced this week for District 1 in West Seattle - he's a tech lawyer perceived to be pretty close to the Harrell administration. A couple of days later, we had Tanya Woo announce for District 2 against Tammy Morales - running, try to be a more corporate-friendly, business-friendly candidate. What's interesting is these candidates are trying to have it both ways. They are clearly saying things that they think will appeal to the business community, will appeal to the political establishment, but also trying to say things that sound somewhat progressive. But the result is it's a word salad. All these, all of their launch documents - you go to their websites, their press releases - they're not really saying anything of substance. They're just trying to say a bunch of words that they think will get voters to like them. And that's alarming to me because as we just talked about, we're facing multiple crises in the city and we need candidates who are willing to step up and provide bold solutions. And instead, what we're starting to get are candidates who were hemming and hawing and tried to be super vague about what they really believe - sound progressive enough, but also really business-friendly. And all these candidates remind me of is Jenny Durkan - when she ran in 2017 with the same type of messaging - very clearly corporate-friendly, but also would say a few things that sounded progressive, just enough to get the progressive voters comfortable with her. We elected her and it was a disaster. So I think as these candidates start to announce and they'll have a ton of money behind them, it's going to be really, really important for the voters to push them pretty hard, to say - no, we're not looking for nice words, we're looking for actual solutions that'll help end the problems that we're facing in the city. [00:16:08] Crystal Fincher: I felt disappointed - really, personally - at a lot of these announcements. We are talking - these things are crises now because they've been building for years. They've been getting worse for years. We're not dealing with new issues. We're dealing with neglected issues. It's no secret how communities felt. We've been talking about, debating about, having a public discourse about homelessness, about taxation, about public health, public safety for years. Very few people are undecided fundamentally on these issues. What really is the differentiator is - where do you stand and what do you want to do? What might make you more effective at doing what you want to do than others who want to do that thing? But instead, we're not hearing people who have participated in this discourse over several years - at least they're acting as if they haven't - some of them have. But we're hearing them just say, Did you vote for initiative I-135? Are you planning to? Well, it's interesting and I haven't decided yet. Okay - after several months and coming to the point where you are going to run, you know how you're going to vote. If you don't know that, you don't know so many other things that are required for running in this city. There's no special knowledge that you get once you get elected and there's no enlightenment that rains down upon you. It just is more accountability. And so I want to know where someone stands. You talked about Jenny Durkan. We heard that from Jenny Durkan, the same kind of - Well, I'm interested. I'm not sure. I want to convene community and listen to what they have to say and then I'll make a decision. I want to evaluate where our taxes are being spent and see where we can cut and blah, blah, blah, blah. We heard that from Ed Murray. We heard that from the leadership that we have been frustrated with, and that have led to this situation where issues have been neglected because of inaction for so long that now they are crises. Ed Murray talked about the homelessness crisis. Jenny Durkan did. Bruce Harrell did. But in the same kind of way. And so I'm just wondering - after seeing this so many times, are they banking on - well, it worked for Ed Murray. It worked for Jenny Durkan. Seems to be working for Bruce Harrell in some things where he seemed to sound more progressive on the campaign trail than how he's governed on certainly some issues. Are they thinking - well, it worked for them. It can work for me too. And let me just try not to offend the majority of Seattleites who are progressive while still making my high-earning corporate supporters - keeping them comfortable and winking and nodding that, Yeah, everything will be fine. I'll be good for you. I just need to say this stuff to make sure that I don't freak out the rest of the voters. And voters deserve better. The City deserves better. And we can't continue to do this same thing over and over again. I think voters are getting hip to that fact, which is why we see election results like we saw this week. [00:19:28] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think there's a common political strategy that consultants will tell their candidates - Don't offend your, don't say anything that might alienate some voters. Be wishy-washy. Don't take a bold stand. That's pretty traditional advice. And it tends to be wrong. You tend to see that in fact, the people who win are the ones willing to take a stand, and willing to talk directly to voters, and show voters that they are willing to fight for what's right. And I think you're going to see that here in 2023. I think coming out of the pandemic, coming out of the rebellions of 2020, I think that City Hall has become very skittish and hesitant. They've been through a lot, but they're also not really stepping up to lead - aside from a few exceptions here and there. And unfortunately, starting to see some candidates who are trying to align themselves with certainly the mayor's office - adopting that same sort of wishy-washy - We're not going to stick our necks out. I don't think that's where the public's at, at all. I think the public wants to see solutions. They want progressive solutions to housing, to homelessness, to public safety. And I think candidates who understand that and are willing to talk in a smart, approachable, sensible way about these things will do really well in 2023. It might surprise some in the established class, it might surprise some of the media, but it shouldn't surprise voters who are clearly asking for that. [00:20:58] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I think another dynamic that is interesting is that we heard the leaked comments from Mayor Harrell in that police department briefing, where he basically said he was recruiting against existing councilmembers. What he wasn't banking on, it sounds like, is the number of open seats that were there. So we have a number of candidates who I think were recruited and started off trying to run as clearly opposition candidates to the candidates that they thought that they were going to be running against. And so I'm wondering if they thought that they would be able to get away with being more moderate, conservative - in opposition to some of the incumbents. That's not what ended up happening. These are open seats. And when having - I will also say, just as a consultant watching this happen over and over again, as you've probably seen - if you have one loud oppositional person, especially who's a moderate or conservative, running against someone who's more progressive, pretty often they will get through primary just because they oftentimes consolidate their base more effectively than several other candidates there. And so they'll get through a lot of times, they won't make it through to the general, but we see that dynamic. Things turned out to be different - there are open seats. And so they don't have someone that they can just say, No, I don't like that. I don't like this. I don't like that. They have more pressure to come out with their own vision, to define who they are and what they want to do, and paint a positive vision, lay out a plan for what they want to do. Seems like some of them weren't prepared to do that. And in a primary, being in the middle is not a good place to be - especially in an open seat, crowded primary. You need to talk about who you are and what you're doing - because lower turnout elections, really consolidating a base in a primary is really important. And people have to be able to know who you are, number one, and then identify what you stand for to see if they align with you. If everyone sounds kind of the same, that becomes a really difficult job and you see big vote splits there. So it's going to be interesting - just in this open seat context - to see how this plays out, how many more people wind up getting into the races. I think we'll see a number of other announcements in these various districts and for King County Council. But it's going to be really interesting to see the results of who stands up and defines themself - really interesting just in the lead up to Initiative 135 - seeing the difference in Seattle City Council candidates and King County Council candidates for people who were willing to say yes or no to whether they were going to vote for Initiative 135 and the ones who just wouldn't give an answer. And for so many other issues - Do you think we need to hire more police? Yeah, maybe, perhaps. We need to look at it. We need to explore and examine. We probably need more. How many more? I don't know. I'll check with community. All these really, like you said, mealy-mouthed wishy-washy things. They got to do better and they got to do better soon. [00:24:31] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, a couple of quick thoughts on that. I think that this is going to be a change election, and some of these candidates were running expecting it to be a change election that would work in their favor - that they would be, that the sort of moderate center would be the opposition bringing change. The fact that so many people are leaving the City Council totally undoes that strategy. And now it's a change election, potentially, with the change people seek as a way from a City Hall that isn't solving their problems. And that is a huge opening to progressive candidates who can now run as change agents without having the baggage of being in office during four really turbulent, difficult years. So I feel like progressive candidates have a huge opening here in 2023 to offer genuine, concrete, specific solutions, to not be afraid to speak directly to voters, to not be afraid to put themselves out there. And I think voters will respond really well to that. You also mentioned police. And I think - 'cause I know this is something we wanted to talk about today as well. It's clear that one of the strategies that these more centrist moderate corporate candidates are planning to run is - we need to hire more cops. In fact, there's been reports out there that those folks are cooking up a ballot initiative potentially for November - to try to force the City to hire, spend even more money hiring even more cops. And it just flies in the face of the facts. There's a national shortage of officers. Even in cities that fell all over themselves to shower love on the police departments during the middle of 2020 while the rest of us were trying to hold them accountable, they're facing shortages too. And it's not because people said unpleasant things about the cops, not because people are holding them accountable, it's not because we're not paying them enough. For the last two years, City Hall has been showering potential recruits with money and they're not coming in the door - they're not coming in the door anywhere in the country. I think part of that is because we haven't reformed the departments. I think you see a lot of potential recruits look at policing and say, I don't want to work in an institution where violent racism is not only tolerated, it's expected. You look at the rank and file of the current Seattle Police Department - these are people who elected Mike Solan, a far-right Trump acolyte, as their president for SPOG in January of 2020 - well before the George Floyd protests began. It's a department that has resisted reform for years. So obviously this is where the defund the police movement came out of - if they will resist reform, we have to go to more extreme solutions. The public has said - Well, we don't really want that. Although the public has still very consistently said, We also want funding for alternatives to policing. There's a huge opening here again for progressives to come in and say, Look, we need to be using our police resources more smartly than we are right now. They shouldn't be chasing after people in mental health crisis - that's where King County's Crisis Care Centers Levy coming up in April is also hugely important - to stand some of that up. But we have to be smart and have an honest conversation that we can't just shower money on recruits who aren't showing up, because fundamental problems in the way policing in the city and in this country is done and we haven't tackled it. And you're not going to solve those problems just by try to get more officers into a broken institution. Your potential officers are saying, No, I'm going to go do something else with my life. [00:27:59] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And we aren't reckoning with what's coming from police. We have had several instances, including number from SPD officers, saying the money isn't the problem. The money isn't the problem - coming from them. Yeah, sure. You can try giving us more of a signing bonus, but that's not going to help. And irresponsibly - when someone's saying money's not the problem and you have a shortage of money - spending it on something that is not going to get results, hearing from the horse's mouth that it's not going to get results is really confounding and confusing. I think that - to your point, we have to look at using the resources more effectively, more efficiently. We talk about efficiency and driving best practices in lots of other areas of government and business, but we seem to exempt police from that. Is patrol really the most appropriate place? The City's own studies - lots of City studies - have shown that the majority of time that patrol officers are spending is not on addressing unlawful activity. They've shown that a majority of calls that they're responding to are not critical emergency calls. So why do we continue to act as if that's the case, to deploy as if that's the case? We need to be more effective in how we utilize our existing resources. And it seems like there's an unwillingness to even entertain that conversation. There is an explicit unwillingness that has come out of - it seems like the Seattle Executive's office - for that in ignoring their own studies and research that they had started. And really not engaging with - we need to look at how officers respond, what they're responding to, and responding to the mandate from Seattle residents to have more appropriate responses to different things. And when we're not doing that, we see everybody unhappy for all of the reasons. You're not responding effectively to anything because you aren't looking at how you can be more effective. Where if we were looking at that, we could potentially be doing really well in some areas and supplementing other areas with resources that have a better chance of solving the root cause. But we keep on entertaining this revolving door, very punitive approach where - Okay, someone is in a behavioral health crisis, but we're going to go ahead and arrest them, put them in jail, which is going to further destabilize them. They're getting out - they still don't have a home, they still don't have a job, they have less of a likelihood to get that. And now a lot of ways and ticky tack things that they have to now adhere to. And if they don't then they just continue in that spiral. We have to get smarter about public safety. We have to talk about public safety more comprehensively. It's more than policing, even for those who are saying it definitely includes policing. You can't say it isn't only policing. It's very shortsighted. It flies in the face of all the data we see. And we admit that all the time. We talk about how important education is. We talk about how important addressing poverty is for good outcomes. We talk about how important all that is and putting people on a correct footing - because we understand that that has a direct correlation to how people are able to build a life, participate productively in society, whatever that means, and to not have to resort to illegal activity, or have options so limited that that's what they choose. We know what to do. It's just a willingness to do it. And we need to stop allowing people who are not invested in the health of our communities dictate this narrative that runs counter to the health of our communities and the safety of our communities. Listen to the people who are there - they're telling you what they need, but our leaders and our media - lots of our media - continues to ignore that. [00:32:12] Robert Cruickshank: It's like housing. We talked earlier that the public - in both polling and now the results of I-135 - clearly support solving the housing crisis with things like social housing. They want something done that's positive and constructive. The polls show the same thing on public safety. I think we'll see, in the Crisis Care Centers Levy that King County is running in April, the same thing. That is setting up a system where you see someone on the street, or on the bus, or wherever in mental health crisis - a danger to themselves, maybe danger to others, you call it in. And rather than a cop showing up, you get trained professionals who understand how to handle mental health crisis show up - and take them not to jail, but to a crisis care center where they're going to get treatment. It works even in states like Arizona - like a purple state like that - the system works really well. Bringing it to King County is essential because then not only are people going to get the care they need rather than being dumped in jail where their situation is going to get so much worse, they might even pass away as we've seen in recent months. But you also free up the police to respond to things that you want them to respond to. You want cops responding to someone breaking the glass door of your local small business. You want cops showing up to a domestic violence incident. You don't want cops showing up to someone in mental health crisis. And you don't want cops necessarily showing up to every time someone has an overdose. And I know this is something else that's been in the news this week. The Community Police Commission, after the horrific incident a few weeks ago where an officer struck and killed someone speeding in their vehicle near Westlake on their way to an overdose call. It turns out that Seattle Fire has a policy where they want an officer at every overdose call. The Community Police Commission said, Where does this policy exist? Why do you have this? What is your justification for this? It doesn't make sense. It is a waste of police resources. And as we're seeing, it's a danger to the community. Someone who's overdosing, someone who's in crisis - they need help. And Fire Department responding is exactly what you want. If for some unknown reason there's a need for police backup, because something else is happening in that situation - case-by-case basis, sure. But to have a policy where you're going to take an officer off of patrol, or off of something more important and go to a call on an overdose - an overdose call is important. It doesn't need an officer there. It doesn't need a guy with a gun showing up. It's usually a guy, as we know, showing up to this. It's a waste of resources. It's dangerous to the community. People are getting killed now because of this policy. It's time to reevaluate that as a part of a larger reevaluation of where are we using our police resources? [00:34:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's based on no data. And in the midst of what they're characterizing as a shortage of police, why are they sending them out to these calls? There's no evidence showing that people who are coming out of an overdose situation are inherently dangerous. If that was the case, we'd be seeing that in hospitals around the country. But in the same way that hospitals treat that - and if they need backup, then they call for it - why wouldn't the Fire Department be doing the same thing? It looks like the Fire Department has been complicit in this thing and saying, Well, we've seen that. But in response to being asked, Really, we have seen people be violent? That's a regular problem? Can you show us any data demonstrating that? None of that has been provided to date. So why are we doing that? And again, looking at how we deploy our existing resources in the midst of a shortage, why is that a priority? We've been making that decision while we were also making the decision to not investigate sexual assaults of adults. How does that make sense - that we're going to rush to and respond to an overdose that's already being handled, that most other cities handle with just a Fire response - this seems to be really outside of best practices and what is generally accepted as normal across the state. It's just really confusing to see why this is happening. And I hope that's something else that is being examined. Also being examined is - how appropriate and when it is appropriate to pursue people in police chases - this is a conversation in the Legislature that has been ongoing. We've talked about this on the program before, but this legislation looks to be advancing. And it's really interesting - we saw this week a pursuit in Kent that ended in a crash, we saw two pursuits in the last two days in California end in fatalities - one of an innocent pedestrian standing by, a number of others ending in crashes. We seem to not be reckoning with how frequently these things are ending in property damage, and in loss of life, or severe injury to people innocently standing by. And we have to acknowledge that the impact is the same as if some external person came and murdered them, or someone came and stole their car. This is harmful to people in the community. And what has never happened has been saying - You can't pursue vehicles. They can pursue. They have been pursuing. They pursue quite frequently, as we've been paying attention to this in the news more closely recently. But this is a debate that they're currently having. What's your view on this? [00:37:56] Robert Cruickshank: When I'm out on the streets myself, sometimes I'll notice that an ambulance comes by and they're speeding to a call, someone's life is in danger. But they're driving quickly, but deliberately and safely - they're taking care to not endanger anyone around them. If I hear a siren - it's a police car coming by - I notice they drive much more aggressively, much more quickly, with apparent less regard for people around them. I think that just speaks to the cultural problems we see in policing - a lack of care and commitment to public safety for anyone other than the officers themselves. And I think it speaks to the larger problem we face here. You have a concern created by right-wing media and by some police themselves who just don't like the idea of being held accountable, or having any restrictions on their operations - who are complaining about laws passed in 2021 governing police pursuits. And as you said, they don't prevent police from pursuing. It has to be a specific situation where certain criteria are met - how it should be. And they're trying to loosen that. And in fact, just yesterday, a bill to loosen rules around police pursuits made it out of a House committee. There are a few people who stood up against that. I want to shout out to them. Newly elected Representative Darya Farivar, from here in the 46th, was the lone Democrat to vote against it - kudos to her. Newly elected Representative Julia Reed is not on that committee - she's from the 36th district - but she had a really good series of tweets yesterday where she called us out and said, This isn't just coming from Republicans, it's coming from some of my fellow Democrats - and I'm not okay with this. We need to continue the fight for fixing things that are broken in our public safety process. So kudos to Representatives Reed and Farivar - it just seems to me that we need more leadership like that. Too many people go to Olympia to play the game, but they showed up to win. And I really appreciate that. They may not be able to stop this bill from going through and weakening important rules around police pursuits, but at least they're standing up and speaking up publicly and trying. And we need to see more of that in Olympia. [00:40:02] Crystal Fincher: We absolutely do. I thank you for bringing them up. I also want to highlight Senator Manka Dhingra, who we've talked about on this show and we interviewed her before. She's talked about - in a lot of areas - that this flies in the face of evidence and of data that show this is dangerous. And an increase in crime, an increase in vehicle deaths are not at all related to whether or not police can pursue people in different instances. Really it looks like the increase in car thefts is really tied to an increase in the value of used cars. But we're really seeing a lot of data flying back and forth, accusations, and people saying - Well, it's for this reason, it's for that reason. Why are we trying to expand this when we don't have solid data or evidence on anything? And to Manka Dhingra's credit, what she has said is that she does not want to bring this up for a hearing on the Senate side, but she is proposing that - Hey, we're hearing a lot of things fly back and forth. We do need to determine what best practices are across the country - what is happening, what is working. And so we can study this and find out what the facts are, particularly for us on the ground here in the state. But standing strong and saying - Look, I know that people want to do this in the law enforcement community, in some elements of the law enforcement community - because to be clear, others have already taken steps to limit police pursuits because this is a best practice and they have recognized that it not only puts the public at risk, but it also puts their officers at risk - to have just a no holds barred, chase everyone whenever you want, even if they just steal some toilet paper from the corner store. So it's going to be interesting to see how this proceeds, particularly in the Senate. But I do hope that people, that a lot of times - we are not bashful about telling our representatives and our electeds our opinions when we disagree with them. But I appreciate calling out ones who are fighting for us and ones who are representing where we stand and what we want - and let them know that you appreciate that, that you have their back - because right now, they're being bombarded by other people and by other lobbies who don't feel the same and who are trying to pressure them with tactics - threatening, battles in the media, challenging that, all that kind of stuff. So make sure that you are engaged in these. We will include links in the show notes to help you see where you can get involved, help contact them. But this is a really important thing that is happening. I hope that is not successful, but don't know. We'll see, because to your point - this is a bipartisan effort. And it's just hard to understand why, particularly after we saw residents across the state reject the kind of reasoning in last year's November elections - voters provided a pretty clear mandate and Republicans tried to make these arguments and actually ran on reversing this. And voters said no across the board to a degree that they rarely do. It's just really confusing to me that - especially the Democrats who support this - would then turn around and say, Okay, but we need to do this anyway. Another example of what we talked about earlier of our elected officials being behind where the public is at. [00:43:44] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, and I think we see this often in the Legislature, unfortunately - a leadership in the Democratic Party in Olympia that is out of touch, unwilling to step up and solve problems. I think you just flagged it correctly. They won an election in 2022, despite being hammered on these issues. They not only protected their swing seats, they picked up a few more. So there's no real urgent mandate from voters, there's no threat to their position for doing this - from making it easier for cops to drive unsafely in police pursuits, but they're doing it anyway. We also see - in education - where the Legislature is really falling down. Thankfully, Marysville's passed a school levy this week - if they hadn't, they're talking about having to dissolve the district. But then the whole McCleary case was designed to make it so you don't have to rely on the local levy anymore. What's turned out is that the Legislature continues to underfund schools. Schools are potentially closing in Seattle, Bellevue - I think we're going to hear about more districts facing this. And the Democratic leadership just isn't engaged on this. There is a bill to try to fully fund special education. There's a cap on the number of students who can receive special education services, even if - that the Legislature will fund, at least. The State Legislature has a cap on how much funding they'll provide for special education. If your district has more than 13.5% of its students who need special education services, the Legislature will not fund above that. In Seattle, 16% of students need services. In rural districts, it's as high as 20%. And those are undercounts. The district is pitted - pits students against each other - says effectively, In order to serve special education students, we got to take money from somewhere else. And so 25 legislators sponsored a bill in the House to eliminate that cap and fund that this year. And a number of people showed up to the House Appropriations Committee hearing last week - myself included, at least virtually - to testify in support - all of a sudden to discover a proposed substitute bill that guts all of that. Says actually, We'll raise it slowly and we'll only implement it over five years. So they're not going to solve the financial problems that schools face. A large part of school deficits is because of underfunding of special education. But the legislative leadership of the Democratic Party is just - it's not a priority for them. They don't seem to really care about public education, even though, once again - polls show the public cares about it. So you have a Democratic leadership in Olympia that feels pressure to change laws around police pursuits because of media pressure, but not really pressure from the public. Certainly not a majority of the public. A few loud voices on the right, but that's not a majority. But the things that the public really does care about, especially education, are just not getting solved. And it's a sad state of affairs in Olympia where the leadership - and I think it's a leadership problem - isn't in touch with what the voters want or need. [00:46:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's a real challenge. I appreciate that you had an excellent piece that ran in The Urbanist earlier this week talking about this, but this is really a comprehensive problem that's been a while in the making that has a lot of different causes. And you talked about a number of issues that are contributing to this - including housing, including our tax system - but really looking at the responsibility of our Legislature to handle this. What needs to happen at various levels of government now to address this, and what impact might this have on school district elections that are coming up? [00:47:27] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, excellent question. The problems facing our schools - it's like a perfect storm of three different things. The Legislature underfunding our schools, cities making it hard for families to stay. When families get priced out and families leave, then your enrollment starts to drop. And then the school district itself is mismanaged, is very top-down - notorious for not responding to the public, notorious for not really caring about what parents and families want - of all backgrounds, of all income levels. So these are all coming together to create a real crisis. In Seattle, if you lose public schools - the schools and neighborhoods start to close, and that just accelerates decline. It accelerates families leaving. It accelerates people who say, I don't want to move to Seattle, right? It works against what we're trying to do at the city and state level in terms of making it easier to build housing and recruit more families and keep families here. If you're not going to provide schools for them, you're going to make them go out of their way to get their kids to school - you're undermining all of that work. One of the things I think we need is leadership in the Legislature, and it strikes me that - we have great leaders on housing in the Legislature - you can look at Jessica Bateman, Nicole Macri. They are champions on housing, and that's great - I like that. There are champions on the environment. We don't seem to have a champion on public education in the Legislature right now. There are people who support it and care about it, but no one really has made it their core issue that they're going to fight on no matter what happens. And that's weird to me, because public education touches so many of their constituents. It's well-liked, universally popular. Polls show that the public wants it. So we need to have champions step up to save our public schools to prevent these closures. I think there's an attitude in Olympia right now that says, Well, enrollment's declining - not much we can do about that. That's terrible, right? We should want everyone in the public system. That is where - we not only educate all of our kids, that's where we do the work of building a better society. We want to undermine racism and privilege and inequity? Bring all the kids into the public system, teach them all together how to be anti-racist - rather than turning the public schools into a de facto safety net, which is what's happening. The other thing the Legislature can do is pass a wealth tax. It has widespread public support - two-thirds of Washington voters want to tax the rich to fund things, including public schools. Do that this year. But that's a situation where a Senate Democrat - in this case Christine Rolfes, Chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee - hasn't brought that bill up for a hearing yet. She is someone who's thinking about running for statewide office next year. Does she really want to go statewide having blocked a wealth tax? That seems unwise. But we'll see what the Democratic leadership in Olympia wants to do. Do they take public education seriously or not? [00:50:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it seems very unwise. And this is another issue that Democrats, especially in battleground districts, ran talking about public education, ran talking about how important it is. This is following a number of teacher strikes that happened at the beginning of the year, where they called out how critical these issues are and they're at nearly unsustainable levels now. They are short staffed when it comes to special education. As you talked about, there are situations where even in a fire drill, there wasn't enough staff to safely evacuate all of their students. This is hazardous in many different ways. And I also want to call out, just as we are looking at this - this is 2023. And this year, not only are we going to be seeing city council elections and mayoral elections, but school board elections - which so often get overlooked, but are absolutely critical to addressing this issue. I hope that we see a deeper examination of school board races across the board - in Seattle, across the state. This is critical. And I also want to call out - it's also critical because our public schools are where a number of - I don't just want to say conservatives, but like fascists, have designated a battleground. We're seeing attacks on trans people existing across the country, and absolutely here too. We're seeing efforts to ban books on everything - from issues that address the LGBTQ community to BIPOC communities. They are really trying to use the schools to outlaw people, to make it illegal to exist. And this has worked in so many other places. We have districts - I'm here in Kent, the Kent School District - candidates who were endorsed by Democrats, one former Chair of the 33rd District Democrats voting against teachers' unions, voting to take them to court, voting to ban books, right? This is something that's happening in these elections because they go so unnoticed. Lots of people do not pay attention or examine, so someone with really extreme, harmful ideologies who does not want to acknowledge the humanity or the right of everybody to exist and learn and thrive are flourishing. And this is how they're getting their foothold into power and into local government. And then they make it onto city councils and into the Legislature and into Congress. We have to pay attention to these things. What's your take on what's at stake in these elections? [00:53:10] Robert Cruickshank: I appreciate you saying that, because school board is hugely important. And it is something that I think the progressive movement generally isn't paying enough attention to - school boards in particular, but also public education. And I think we need to change that here in 2023 for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's also true in Seattle where thankfully we're not seeing efforts to ban books. The previous school board did in 2015 think about trying to sue teachers when they went out on strike - thankfully they got strong public pushback against that. But I think the problem we have in Seattle, for example, is a school board that is disengaged - that isn't really willing to step up and do the work to fix the district, to take on persistent mismanagement, and to rebuild the district in a way that power devolves to the community in ways that are equitable. And I think you have four seats here in Seattle that are up for re-election this year - that's the majority of the board. And there are a few of us parents who are working to try to figure out - who's out there, who's willing to step up and run. And it's hard - it's an underpaid job. You get $4,000 a year, essentially, with no real support and a lot of work. But it's important and rewarding work that has to be done because public education is just one of those absolutely crucial things to the future of our society. And the right understands this. They get that very, very clearly. The corporations understand - that's why they want to privatize the system - because there's a lot of money in it. The right understands because there's a lot of power in it. And I think progressives need to make 2023 the year that - in Washington State, at least - they really deeply engage on this. We saw around the country last year in 2022 - where progressives did engage on school board races, they did really well. A lot of parents in places like North Carolina or Michigan, Texas mobilized to stop these right-wingers who wanted to use school districts and school boards to attack other kids. And those progressive candidates by and large did well. I think it's important for us in Washington State, whether you are in a district where those anti-trans, anti-critical race theory people are coming in, or whether you're in Seattle where the problems are different - you just have a school board that isn't really focused on doing the job properly. We as progressives need to really get our act in gear on this and take public education and school boards super seriously this year. [00:55:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And issues like special education, issues about letting police back into schools are on the docket this year. And if we don't step in and make our voices heard, make our preferences heard, other people certainly will. Like you said, conservatives have understood for a long time. They've understood the importance of the courts at a more fundamental level than progressives have traditionally. And they understand the role of public education - in just our society and how it shapes - so I hope we continue to pay attention to that. Appreciate all of your insight here. We'll also link that op-ed that you wrote and include that in the show notes. And I just want to thank everybody for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 17th, 2023 - this year continues to evaporate. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on Twitter @cruikshank, that's C-R-U-I-C-K S-H-A-N-K. You can follow me on Twitter @finchfrii. Follow Hacks & Wonks @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by friend of the show and today's co-host: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm!  They look at WA traffic policy discussions, middle housing arguments, the Working Families Tax Credit, Shasti Conrad as the new WA Democrats Chair, King County and Seattle Council elections, and new Durkan/Best controversy news.  This week, Washington state lawmakers met to discuss ways the state can work to decrease traffic deaths, mostly focusing on education and traffic enforcement, as well as banning turning right on red at certain intersections. Lawmakers also spoke out against the legislature's middle housing bill. 46th LD Rep Gerry Pollet, and Seattle City Council Member Alex Pedersen have come out against the push to increase housing density. Also this week, lobbyist Cody Arledge wes barred from the Capitol campus after a judge found he was stalking State Rep. Lauren Davis of Shoreline. Despite this not being his first issue with stalking and threatening behavior, Arledge had some big clients, including the City of Seattle.  The Working Families Tax Credit went live this week! Please look at the resources below to find out if you're eligible and apply. Automatic tax programs like TurboTax might not automatically alert you of eligibility for the tax, so be on the lookout.  Washington State Democrats elected Shasti Conrad as their new chair last Saturday, following Tina Podlodowski's successful run in the role. Meanwhile, Seattle councilmember Tammy Morales announced that she will be running for re-election on the Seattle City Council, while councilmember Teresa Mosqueda announced her run for King County Council. This news continues to show that this year's elections will bring major change to our state and council leadership.  In other election news, King County voters have until February 14th to vote in the race for King County Conservation District board. Crystal and Doug break down what the board is and why it's an important decision. Voters in the county will also be voting this April on whether the county will implement a $1.25 billion levy to fund crisis care networks.  Finally, Crystal and Doug wrap up the show with a new update on the controversies surrounding Former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Former Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best. New reporting from Carolyn Bick of The South Seattle Emerald shows that Durkan might have pushed the OPA to delay its investigations into Best, deepening the number of violations the former mayor performed.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm.   Resources “How the SPOG Contract Stands in the Way of Police Accountability with Shannon Cheng” hosted by Crystal Fincher at Hacks and Wonks    “State Road Safety Push Overlooks Design, Dwells on Enforcement” by Gregory Quetin from The Urbanist    “Pollet, Pedersen, and Blethen Assail State Housing Push” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist    “Prominent lobbyist barred from WA Capitol after ruling he stalked state representative” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Applications for the WA Working FAmilies Tax Credit are live. This is who is eligible” by Jared Gendron from The News Tribune    “How to sign up for WA's new Working Families Tax Credit” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “WA Democrats choose Shasti Conrad as new leader”  by David Gutman from The Seattle Times     “Incumbent Tammy Morales seeks re-election in Seattle District 2” - by Josh Cohen from Crosscut   “Mosqueda Announces Run for Vacant King County Council Seat” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist     “King County voters to decide on Crisis Care Centers Levy in April” by CHS from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog   “Meet the candidates for the little-known King Conservation District board” by Guy Oron form Real Change News   “Fmr. Mayor May Have Pushed OPA to Delay Investigations Into Fmr. Police Chief” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald  Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, I had a conversation with Hacks & Wonks' very own Dr. Shannon Cheng, also of People Power Washington - Police Accountability. Shannon taught us about the intricacies of how the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract stands in the way of police accountability and what the City can do to try and create more accountability. Today, we're continuing our almost-live Friday show where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. [00:01:21] Doug Trumm: Hi Crystal - thanks for having me. [00:01:22] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you here, Doug. We have a full week of news to review when it comes to politics and policy in Washington state. Wanted to start just following up on something that has - we've just gotten a drumbeat of news week after week, day after day - in a couple of very high profile recent pedestrian collisions, cars hitting pedestrians in the Seattle area. It's skyrocketed both in Seattle and in the region. This is a crisis. And there was a press conference this week about that. What happened? [00:01:56] Doug Trumm: Yeah, the state is taking a look at safety. They know that the statewide safety data is really bad. It's going up. The state also has a goal of trying to get to zero traffic deaths by 2030 and it's had that goal a long time and it's just not going anywhere quick. So the state lawmakers gathered, Governor Inslee was there, you had the two Transportation Chairs - Marko Liias in the Senate and Jake Fey in the House. And they had a lot of proposals - there's a lot of legislation proposed this session. But most of it is focused on enforcement and education, and most cities that have done Vision Zero really well have really focused on design in addition to those things. It's definitely some troubling signs and our contributor, Greg Quetin, had a piece on that - just talking about, Hey, we need more design focus. So I encourage folks to check that out for more. But there is some good stuff proposed, like banning right turn on red in busy areas - pedestrian heavy areas - is a good idea and would be very happy to see that pass. But some of these other bills - if we're just talking about giving state troopers bonuses and putting state troopers out on more roads, there's really diminishing returns on that. And might make sense to ramp up enforcement of drunk driving and things like that and lower the limit - that's a good idea. But I think if we're trying to get to zero, we have to start looking at design too. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Pedestrian fatalities have actually increased during these few recent years while this Vision Zero program has been in place. And like you talked about, there's stuff about education, there's stuff about enforcement. You did talk about the right turn on red - cars turning red into pedestrians, into bikes is a really big problem. So that's why the banning the right turn on red is a proposed solution and really looking at balancing - Okay, we're talking about a minute delay potentially for a driver and that can make the difference of saving someone's life or preventing someone from being maimed in a collision with a car. And so really looking at - hey, we have to balance - yes, people are trying to get around in cars on roads and freeways, but also we have a lot of people who are getting around on foot, on bike, who are waiting for transit, who are very vulnerable to cars - and they can inflict lethal damage. They're doing that with increasing frequency and something has to be done. Now, when you talk about design choices, what kinds of things are you talking about? [00:04:31] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I think the lowest hanging fruit - the state has pretty much full control over state routes, highways throughout communities. And those do - they have an important role to play as far as moving people between metro areas and cities, and moving freight and everything. But when they come through heavily populated areas, the state could easily slow traffic there by - either redesign the street to be narrower because people tend to go slower when there's narrower roads, doing things like bump outs at intersections so pedestrians have shorter crossing distances. There's things with a ton of data behind them to show that this decreases the likelihood of a high speed crash. And shorter pedestrian crossing distances is often something that will help with that - you're just exposed less time. It also sends a cue to a driver - Hey, oh, there's something in my field of vision here. I'm not just on this wide rainbow road, like in Mario Kart. I have obstacles here. There was Amber Weilert, a parent of a kid - a 13-year-old kid - who got killed in Pierce County on his bike. Very sad story. That was the best part of the press conference - is they let someone speak from her own experience. And she was nice enough to share her story, which is very tragic. But that road is a super wide road, and that probably contributed to her son being killed. So if we were to redesign that road to be narrower, maybe Michael Weilert would still be alive. [00:06:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. So we will continue to follow the progress on action taken as a result of this. We heard news that the City of Seattle recently received a grant for traffic safety improvements. We will see how those end up being implemented, but this is absolutely a problem that needs a solution. Also at the state level in our Legislature, there continues to be a housing push for middle housing, for some price mitigation, renter protection factors. But we saw Gerry Pollett - who is currently a state legislator in the 46th district, who is rumored to be considering running for city council - Alex Pedersen, and The Seattle Times oppose the housing push. What were they saying? [00:07:02] Doug Trumm: Same old, same old, Crystal. They're mad that someone's making money off of this that's not them, as homeowners. But The Seattle Times kicked the ball off there with this kind of screed about how this bill is a giveaway to developers, and it's not going to create affordable housing, it's not going to meet whatever - everything is wrong with it. You never can win with folks like that because they want all new development to fit in this perfectly narrow box, which Ray Dubicki did a good job of laying out in our coverage over this week that - what would it take for The Seattle Times to be happy with it? We do live in a capitalist society. We don't go to the grocery store and expect all the wholesalers to make no money doing what they're doing. The reality is until the socialist takeover, or whatever the communist takeover - it would really have to be - if you want housing to get developed, someone's going to be making money off it. So this constant whining about developers making money off of housing people, it just seems to me like a distraction and disingenuous. The Seattle Times is all too happy for people to make money off of their single family homes. They also made a ton of money when they sold their property to developers and built a skyscraper there, so they're not immune to this themselves. It was a lot of bad arguments and of course, Gerry Pollett and Alex Pedersen loved it. Alex Pedersen had a whole long tome in his newsletter about agreeing with it and developers being evil - hitting those points hard. I'm not exactly sure what they were expecting as far as affordable housing. Alex Pedersen did have this proposal that only - basically, low-income housing should be the only thing allowed to be built above the current zoning. But those kind of proposals - when you actually talk to affordable housing providers, they realize that, No, that's not really workable. You're not going to be able to build only nonprofit housing because nonprofit houses can scale up but they can't carry the load for the entire housing needs. You don't have to be terribly sophisticated to realize that you build the housing now and eventually, it becomes more affordable. If you build no market-rate housing, you're not helping working-class folks. [00:09:39] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. There seems to be broad agreement and voter support. And looking at who voters have been supporting for various positions - for increased housing, for more middle housing, more housing for everyone. Certainly that is not the only thing that is needed to make sure that displacement stops, that people are not thrown out of housing in the short term, and that renters are treated fairly. But it's hard to find people these days, especially experts, who say that housing supply does not need to increase in order to address our affordability crisis. When you look at housing prices, when you look at rental prices - it is a crisis. The average person who's not a high wage worker in Seattle can't afford to live in Seattle, can't afford to live in many communities that used to be really accessible to a lot of people. Suburbs are skyrocketing in cost and even though the rate of increase is slowing down, it's actually still increasing. So we will see how that plays out. But Gerry Pollett certainly made news last session for his opposition and kind of being the person most responsible for the death of the middle housing bill - and seems like he would be excited to play that same role again, despite such widespread support in the community for a different path. [00:11:12] Doug Trumm: And he's just not being honest about what his position is, which is also frustrating. If you block something, at least own it - but he was trying to have it both ways. And then he does this Facebook post, which might have more to do with indicating he might want to run for city council than any serious policy discussion. [00:11:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see. We know that he is not on some of the committees that he did want to be on. And that may also hasten his desire to exit from the Legislature, but we'll stay tuned on the developments there. Also this week, there was news that came out about a prominent lobbyist being barred from the Capitol after he stalked State Representative Lauren Davis. What happened here? [00:11:54] Doug Trumm: This was a surprising case where this lobbyist thinks that he can just keep doing this. And he's in a prominent firm, so I don't know if that's part of what he thinks he can get away with. He already had a domestic abuse allegation from the 90s or early 2000s, so it wasn't like this was completely out of character for him - which makes his case harder to make that, Oh, he was just trying to do his job and that's why he kept hounding Representative Davis. And he just, it's just - we need to just put this stuff behind us - people can't get away with this kind of thing. And he can certainly still do his job without violating his - terms of his restraining order. [00:12:45] Crystal Fincher: So Lauren Davis did get a domestic violence protection order. This lobbyist, Cody Arledge - it looks like kind of the textbook intimidation, threatening, stalking, veiled threats. And a judge found that there was cause for risk and concern, and granted that protective order. He ended up - he also had a number of firearms that were confiscated by the police. He actually petitioned to get them back. There was an extreme risk protection order that prevented that from happening. And as you said, this is not his first instance with domestic violence. Davis and Arledge evidently had a relationship in 2021. But before that, he was in a relationship with a woman, requested that - she requested that they stop, he stopped contacting her. He continued to do so using various email addresses, cloaking his phone number. It just seems like this person does not take no for an answer. And then with Lauren Davis seemed to move it into something that would affect her work and sending veiled threat that was alleged to her office. And so it just looked like it was escalating behavior. And Cody Arledge of The Arledge Group is not able to be basically around the Capitol when Lauren Davis is there, has violated a protection order before - and so hopefully everybody remains safe and these measures are enough to keep Lauren Davis and other women who he may have had or will have relationships with safe. [00:14:35] Doug Trumm: And he has some big clients, including the City of Seattle. I wonder if this will end up impacting those, but - lobbyists are known for not always being the most upstanding citizens, but I think this is on another level and pretty unfortunate. Why is it always people like this who have a gun locker with 17 guns in it, you know? [00:14:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to paint all lobbyists with the same brush. Some are wonderful, doing wonderful work and advocacy for excellent organizations that we support. But certainly this is alarming. This is a lobbyist that does, like you said, has a lot of big Democratic and left-leaning clients. And we still have to hold everybody accountable no matter what. [00:15:21] Doug Trumm: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility. I hope he - I hope he follows it himself, although not all of his guns are in his gun lockers - some are just on top of his fridge. [00:15:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some were definitely insecurely and dangerously stored. So that has happened. Also this week - one thing that went live that we definitely want to mention is the Working Families Tax Credit for Washington state - this is a state, not a federal tax credit - is now live. And the application is live. We will link to how you can apply for that. But basically in a nutshell, families that have, or people that have children - their children living with them - are eligible for up to $1,200. There are some qualifications and income tiers that apply, but that is live now. And one thing that I definitely wanted to mention about this is that if you are using TurboTax - which is known and has been cited for deceptive practices before - will not call your attention to this, or let you know that you may be eligible for this up to $1,200 tax credit. So make sure that you separately seek out - if you have kids, take a look and see if you are eligible for this - because your tax preparation software, if you are using that or if you're doing it yourself, may not automatically flag that this is something that you're eligible for on a state level. [00:16:48] Doug Trumm: Yeah, get your money. [00:16:49] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Some tax programs will. TurboTax is definitely one that won't. But $1,200 can make a big difference to a lot of people. And I hope everyone who is eligible does apply and get what they're due. In other news this week, Shasti Conrad, former Chair of the King County Democrats, was elected as the Washington Democrats Chair. Was there anything notable to you about this? [00:17:13] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I thought that was a great pick - had a chance to meet Shasti a few times. I think it signifies they are - as someone who's young, who's a woman of color - that's exactly where they should be going. And she has worked on a ton of great campaigns, pretty strong ties to progressives and the mainstream as well. But I think that's a great pick and there certainly has been angst in the past about how King County Democrats have been run, but I think she's someone who can come in and do a great job. [00:17:44] Crystal Fincher: I do appreciate the way Shasti steered the King County Democrats, especially after the problems and controversies that they had prior to her. And really did a lot of groundbreaking work in recruiting PCOs - getting more people active at the grassroots level at the party - and doing more to support candidates, recruit and support more diverse candidates in lots of different ways - younger candidates, working well with labor. She really seemed to understand building coalitions and increasing majorities and increasing Democratic representation around the county. Certainly, Seattle is a place where mostly Democrats get elected, but elsewhere in the county, there are a number of swing districts and certainly saw movement in that direction with those. Shasti is taking over after Tina Podlodowski decided to step down. After her largely successful term at the King County Democrats, I'm really looking to hear what Shasti is planning to do statewide. I know she has talked about plans for not just King County or Western Washington, but the entire state and making inroads with that. And I'm looking forward to Democrats showing up everywhere in Washington and being really competitive, particularly when we see what the opportunity is after very successful elections like the ones we just saw in 2022. In local news, we had one councilmember announce that they are running for reelection, another Seattle City Councilmember announced that they're running for office at the county level. Who's doing what? [00:19:27] Doug Trumm: I think it was Wednesday we got the news that Tammy Morales is running for council, which was only the second of the seven councilmembers up for reelection right now to announce, Hey, I'm actually sticking around for another term. The other was Andrew Lewis so far, which just leaves Dan Strauss as the person who hasn't officially announced their plans. But pretty much looks like Dan is going to run, but we'll wait for the official announcement for that. But yeah, there's four retirements - so Tammy Morales brought that up in her announcement - that I don't begrudge my colleagues for hanging it up. It's a tough job. It's gotten vitriolic lately with, especially I think related to the defund the police backlash where - the biggest example of that I think was Lisa Herbold getting a brick thrown through her window. These folks - they definitely pay a price for their public service. We know that people are drawn to it, as Morales mentioned - they are willing to overcome those obstacles, but it takes a toll on their families, I'm sure. So was excited to see that Tammy was going to run. And she had made that announcement in Beacon Hill at Plaza Maestas, and had some other progressive leaders with her, and had a pretty good announcement - not everyone always does a big splashy thing like that, but I thought it spoke to the strong connections she has to those organizations, which include a frequent partner of ours in Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. The nonprofits themselves don't endorse, but Clara Cantor has partnered with her in a number of events, a number of projects - so Tammy has been a leader on transportation for sure. And she's not chair of that committee. Unfortunately, we have a chair who's not much of a leader in transportation, but Tammy stepped up. Her district has been the epicenter of the traffic safety crisis we talked about statewide earlier. And she's really risen to the occasion and is demanding more to be done to make southeast Seattle safer to walk, roll, and bike through. [00:21:29] Crystal Fincher: She has been an effective progressive leader, both in being a partner to Teresa Mosqueda - who we're going to talk about more in just a moment - in things like passing the JumpStart Tax, worker protections, renter protections, investments, even trying to push and move forward allocating more money to affordable housing, to supportive services - just from soup to nuts, and has really been rooted in community. Talked a lot about her vision for more walkable neighborhoods, for mitigating environmental harm and other harms, and like you said, has been the most vocal councilmember on the absolute urgency of addressing our pedestrian and bike fatalities and making getting from one place to another in the City safer for everyone. So looking forward to seeing that campaign. There have been a number of different people who have filed for the various vacant positions. Five of the seven council positions are up this year - all of the districted positions, and the citywide positions will be up in two years. And we have heard from, like you said, all but two of the councilmembers up that they are stepping away or stepping down. You mentioned the brick through Lisa Herbold's window. Councilmember Sawant also had people making threats, potentially threats involving guns, with her at her house. It can be a very thankless job, but it can also create a lot of meaningful improvement and progress and opportunity for a lot of people in the City. And so I hope with this new council - with a lot of people coming in - if Tammy is re-elected, she will be one of the senior members of the council. And so that will be interesting to see how that dynamic translates and how this new council shapes up. And what Bruce Harrell does as the executive in the meantime. I think that this is also another good time to just reiterate the - a lot of times we talk about the council - more opportunity to talk about it a lot of times, because there are several, they're all running. They have public hearings and so they're more visible a lot of times than the person in the executive seat, but they set the direction and fund things. The mayor is responsible for enacting policy, for following through, for the implementation, for spending the money, using the money, actually implementing his version of the programs that fit within what the council has authorized funding for. [00:24:15] Doug Trumm: And the local press corps doesn't always do a good job of making that clear because at Morales's press conference, the first question was a gotcha style question on - Oh, defund the police. What are you doing for safety? Then what are you doing to fix the homeless encampments? And she certainly has the power of the purse on that one, as far as being one of nine votes on the budget. But when you get down to actual - what are the departments of the City doing? That's really up to the mayor. And it's very hard for the council to come in and override that kind of authority because all the agencies' heads are going to be answering to the mayor rather than them, so they're definitely not trying to be redirected by the council in that way. So that was interesting. But yeah, and then we were getting to Teresa Mosqueda, who announced that she's leaving the council - potentially - if she wins. But when you announce with 80, 90 endorsements, it's probably a good sign. That's what she did - including everyone from Dow Constantine to Pramila Jayapal, our Congressperson in part of Seattle anyway. And she's running for King County Council District 8, which is now vacated with McDermott retiring. And her list of endorsements was a lot. And four of her colleagues on the County Council, four of her colleagues on City Council, so it definitely looks like a high powered - I wonder who will try to step up. You never can say anyone's a sure thing for election. But if she is elected, that would mean that that county, or citywide seat, on council would - I think you would have a temporary replacement. I should have checked this before this. You'd have a temporary replacement for her seat. And then I think there'd have to be a special election because of the two year gap. But it would create an extra wrinkle in - what is the council makeup going to be? It also would take what would have been the senior-most member and - yeah, and turn someone like Tammy into the senior-most member because it would just take two terms, I think at that point, because the long running councilmembers are all leaving. [00:26:30] Crystal Fincher: That was an announcement. And the amount of support that - looking at these two announcements that we did have this week - came with a lot of support. And Teresa Mosqueda certainly coming out with I think it was 90ish endorsements from across the spectrum. [00:26:45] Doug Trumm: It keeps growing - yeah. [00:26:46] Crystal Fincher: Justifiably - I understand how that happens. She has a lot to run on. Really big consequential accomplishment in getting the JumpStart Tax through - that was something that was opposed initially by a lot of the business community. Even the mayor, Bruce Harrell, was not in favor of it - talked about doing that - [00:27:09] Doug Trumm: And still endorsed her, by the way. [00:27:10] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely popular with residents of the City. And really saved the City from some really painful cuts with a budget that has taken a downturn, revenue taking a downturn. It was revenue from the JumpStart Tax that really was able to plug those holes, which the mayor utilized and seemed to come around and understand that - Yeah, this is a good positive thing. It is okay if businesses and those who are profiting from the public investments that have been made in the City do contribute back to address the challenges that we're having. And that shouldn't rest solely on each resident's back - that everyone has a role to play in this and that businesses can also contribute - and so that, certainly looking at that. Talking about behavioral health and public health being a big priority. Teresa has a long background in that and looking forward to tackling that at the county level - because the county is primarily responsible for that. And it's going to take some big action trying to move forward a housing levy, trying to - depending on if this upcoming behavioral health levy passes - how to implement that effectively. And implementation is a big thing. It's one thing to pass something, but it still takes skill and focus and expertise to implement it countywide in the way that it was intended. So will be interesting to see how this does, continue to proceed - like you said - with that kind of list of endorsements, backing even of people who had previously not been as supportive with people, like you said, including Mayor Harrell. It is going to be a tall task for a challenger, but we'll see if one steps up and decides to take her on - one or more. But certainly shaping up to be very interesting elections with so many open seats and such change possible there. One thing I do want to note - that I think was a good idea - that Teresa mentioned was looking at changing how these city council elections happen in the City. Right now, with all of the districted seats up in one year, and then two years later - on the other cycle - the two citywide seats up - it really creates the situation where you can have massive turnover. Which can be a challenge in terms of continuity of knowledge, implementation of things, and just more stability with the council. So maybe staggering that where a couple of the districted ones and one of the citywide seats being up in one year, and then two years down the line staggering the other ones - which I think would be a good idea, would bring about more stability, and we don't have this seeming lurching back and forth with policy. And again, like we talked about before, I don't want to overstate what the council is actually responsible for - the mayor is going to be responsible for implementing so much, but it will help to have more stability at council and maybe not be looking at a body that looks different except for one or two people. [00:30:29] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and if they can switch it to even years - even better. [00:30:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - and I definitely hope that happens. And in a few years we'll also be seeing ranked choice voting for those elections, so that will be another thing that we will be following through. [00:30:42] Doug Trumm: One last thing I'll sneak in on Mosqueda - I think she made a good case of - why run for county council. You mentioned that health care being a big one, behavioral health - setting up those crisis centers is huge. And she also mentioned transit, which is a huge thing for the county council to tackle - they run the King County Metro budget. And she put in a good word for round-the-clock transit service, better service between peaks - we honestly could use better service at all hours - but I think that was a very good point from her. And if the county council can focus on expanding transit service, I think that would be a huge win and a huge thing for her to be part of - along with it being a big year for that is because you have probably the strongest champion for transit on the council, Claudia Balducci, up for re-election and Girmay Zahilay up for re-election. And then in the - I think it's the 6th - you have Sarah Reyneveld running for the seat held by Jeanne Kohl-Welles, so you potentially could have four transit champions depending on how those folks run - so we'll be watching that very closely. [00:31:47] Crystal Fincher: We absolutely will be. Another thing we'll be paying attention to is what was just authorized by the King County Council - a decision to put crisis care centers, a levy for crisis care centers, on the ballot this April. What would this do? [00:32:04] Doug Trumm: I think it - I mean, it's huge investment - raise $1.25 billion, am I getting that right? Yeah - that's a lot of money. It would set up crisis centers in multiple parts of the county, and it would be a place for us to actually have folks who are having behavioral health crisis or mental health crisis to actually go - because so many times right now we're treating that with jail, or just moving people around to different - Here, have your crisis somewhere else, you know. That's not a way to actually solve this problem so I think that would be a important step for our county to take. Unfortunately, the federal government has abdicated its responsibility on health care, and on the mental health side of that especially, so that puts counties in the spot of having to raise the money themselves and I'm glad that King County is in the position to step up and do that. [00:32:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this levy, if it passes, would fund 24/7 walk-in clinics, short-term observation stays of 23 hours, stabilization stays of up to 14 days, also would increase the pay of these health workers at these clinics - up to 20% more than comparable facilities - which is a major thing because there is a shortage of providers that we're also trying to address here. It's really important - as we talk about a lot of times and focus on undoing a lot of the harmful practices, like you mentioned - they say that they're trying - right now, one of the main ways to address this is through jail, which is not effective. It's actually destabilizing. And so it's important to undo the harm, but it is also just as critical to build the systems that help. We can't just undo the harmful things, we have to build the helpful things. This will do it - I would love to see this funded out of the general fund and just be a regular course of business, but if this is how it has to happen I think it's absolutely worth it. And poll after poll, election after election - we see voters say, We see this is a humongous need. We absolutely support more behavioral health, mental health interventions. And we can see, all over the place, the need for this - people in crisis - having these behavioral health crises where we know that calling the police or sending them in jail is not going to address the root cause. These people need more fundamental intervention and we should make that possible. So that will be on the ballot in April. We have talked about before Seattle's Initiative 135, which will be on the ballot for the election ending on Valentine's Day - you should have your ballots in hand for that. There is also another election that often goes unnoticed and that votes a bit differently - it's actually an online vote for the King Conservation District. What is at stake? What does the King Conservation District do? And how can people vote for this? [00:35:07] Doug Trumm: Yeah, this is a weird one as far as how you can vote for it, because you have to - you don't just get the ballot in the mail. You have to sign up or ask for the ballot to be mailed to you - what you get is just an announcement thing. So it's not terribly hard, but it's just an extra step that isn't there for other elections. I still haven't done it this cycle, so I gotta go and actually do that. But you just - you get the link, and you go online, and you vote there. And it is very much the type of thing where it is hard to tell - what do these folks actually do? You have to do your actual research on it. And conservation, obviously, is a big one since we just passed this big levy in this region - Conservation Futures - so these conservation commissioners obviously would have a say in how to do all that, I suppose. But yeah - maybe you should say, Crystal, because I feel like I don't even fully understand what they do. [00:36:14] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I mean it's - unfortunately, because of the way these elections are held - which is largely online, and we will put a link to this information - that is challenging. And Guy Oron actually had a great article about the King Conservation District Board and the candidates - information on the candidates running - but the King Conservation District is one of Washington's 45 local conservation districts. They assist cities and private landowners to advance conservation goals through programs like grant making, technical assistance education. Some recent programs that they've spearheaded have been assistance to small local farmers - especially those from marginalized backgrounds - coordinating volunteers to help with natural and ecosystem restoration, funding projects to mitigate the amount of pollution that enters the region's waterways - these are things that actually help all of us, and certainly Washington is known for its natural beauty - this is helping to protect and preserve that, which is very important as we see the continued pressure of sprawl and external development that is paving over so much of what we used to have - protecting what is left is absolutely critical. It's funded through a small property tax - it averages about $13 per parcel of land - and so it encompasses all of King County except for a handful of cities. So odds are you do this - we are electing its board of supervisors - they're unpaid, but they oversee what happens. And there are three candidates for this position - and we'll link a Q&A with them in the chat - but Chris Porter, April Brown, and - I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly - Csenka Favorini-Csorba are running there. And they each have various backgrounds, they're bringing different things to the table - but this is an elected body that has control of resources and directs how they're allocated - that impacts our environment. Like I said - mitigation of health impacts - we've talked before about how much air pollution, water pollution has impacted life expectancy in the region. Your life expectancy can vary up to seven years based on the zip code that you live in in King County. A lot to clean up, a lot to do - and so I hope people do engage with this. It does fly so under the radar because it's a different kind of election, but we'll link to it - ballots are due by Valentine's Day. This is a county-wide thing, so even though Seattle residents get a ballot in the mail, there is also - for everyone in the county, almost everyone in the county - an online voting process for this. There's potentially some talk about in the future moving this to the regular ballot, but for this election it's online. So I encourage you to get involved with that - we will link the article so you can get more familiar with the various candidates. And then also - last thing we will cover today is - these news stories about former mayor Jenny Durkan, former police chief Carmen Best - we just continue to get a drip, drip, drip of those. And Carolyn Bick of the South Seattle Emerald and their Watchdragon investigative reporting reported that Jenny Durkan may have pushed OPA, an oversight arm that investigates incidents and officers, to delay investigations into the former police chief. How did that happen? [00:39:57] Doug Trumm: It took a lot of digging into emails for Carolyn Bick to get this story, but - it becomes pretty apparent in the emails that she completely leaned on OPA Director Andrew Myerberg to shut down this investigation. And he was raising concerns that - Oh, this is going to have - not just be wrong on its face, but also slow down other investigations that they were trying to do. And Mayor Durkan sometimes - through her attorney - was requiring him to slow walk that and make that go away. And yeah, that's exactly how the Office of Police Accountability should not be operating - I mean, it's supposed to be an independent arm of accountability - but it takes a ton of criticism. And this just unfortunately makes that criticism seem very warranted - supposedly there's three legs of the stool in the accountability for after the police supposedly reformed under the consent decree. And the OPA is supposed to be one of them, but it - to be honest - doesn't really hold up its end of the bargain so - yeah, it's just very disappointing to see. And they were getting in the way of another body too, so that makes it even worse because you have the Sentinel - is SER Sentinel, was it Event Review or something? I forget what the E is - [00:41:22] Crystal Fincher: Sentinel Event Review - yes. [00:41:24] Doug Trumm: Sentinel Event Review - yeah, they always have such odd names. Yeah, they were trying to investigate former police chief Carmen Best and in that - maybe they're flailing with desperation - the mayor's office had the OPA trying to try to squash that, and it's just not their role. I mean, they're supposed to be encouraging accountability and instead they're shielding the police chief. It's just not what you want to see. [00:41:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is alleged - based on a public disclosure request and documents that were obtained by Carolyn Bick in the South Seattle Emerald - that yeah, Durkan did slow walk this, advocated for completion of kind of a tangential investigation that could take years before moving on to an investigation of Carmen Best as an individual - some of this is related to the abandonment of the East Precinct. We've heard lots and lots about deleted texts that look like they were intentionally and illegally deleted - that is being investigated to see what happened there. But waiting for this one type of investigation - which this type of investigation explicitly says - Hey, this is not for investigating individual officers, this is for more systemic issues. And waiting for an investigation of former chief Best - maybe hoping that - hey, they'll both be out of office by the time they get back around to this and we can avoid any kind of accountability - looks like it's alleged to potentially be part of the motivation. We will continue to follow this. There are other investigations that have opened up. And to our local media's credit, you all continue to pay attention to this and look into this, because it is - this is a major issue for accountability - whether some people are above the law and others aren't. And especially when it's people who are tasked with upholding the law - we have a former police chief and a former mayor, who is also a former federal prosecutor - who by all accounts seem to be intimately familiar with the law, yet are alleged to have violated it in several different instances. So not surprising but disappointing - a continuation of that - I don't know. We'll see what happens with that. [00:43:49] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and Andrew Myerberg also failed up out of this one as well - becoming, getting a cabinet post in the Harrell administration, I think - which has now been, he's now been moved on or whatever from already, but he was like Director of Public Safety or some position like that for Mayor Harrell. And it was sort of - well, did he do such a good job at OPA that he deserved this position? It was sort of unclear. I mean, he did put up a fight in this email, but it looked like he ultimately caved and let the OPA kind of be this shield instead of this accountability mechanism. [00:44:22] Crystal Fincher: Yep, so with that - we will conclude the news this week. And we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 3rd, 2023. I cannot believe how time is flying - time just evaporates - maybe it's just because I'm so old. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm - that's two M's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii - that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the podcast - the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith! They look at tragic traffic deaths in Seattle, track leg updates on free school meals and minimum wage for incarcerated workers, discuss the Washington Supreme Court's hearing on our capital gains tax, outline County Prosecutor Leesa Manion's changes to the office, update us on Seattle's social housing initiative, and react to candidates running for Seattle City Council.  Crystal and Rich start the show by covering this week's tragic traffic deaths, including the death of 23-year old grad student Jaahnavi Kandula, who was hit by a police vehicle. The number of these incidents is a horrific reminder that these fatalities aren't due to random chance, but are the result of numerous policy priorities and choices by elected officials and institutions.  Turning to the state legislature, our hosts give overviews on a bill to give free lunches to all public school students in Washington state and a bill that would provide minimum wage to incarcerated individuals for their labor. In state Supreme Court news, this week the court heard arguments for the suit over our state's capital gains tax that the legislature passed last year. We'll be keeping an eye out to see when we finally get a decision on this case.  King County's new Prosecuting Attorney, Leesa Manion, outlined her new approach to the office, including the creation of a gun violence prevention unit and a division focused on prosecuting gender-based violence. Rich also updates Crystal on the Stranger's Election Control Board's endorsement of Seattle's social housing initiative I-135, which will be on the ballot for the upcoming February 14th election. Finally, we end the show catching up on the newly announced candidates for this year's Seattle City Council elections, and ask why some candidates are announcing their campaigns without a clear vision of why they want the seat.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Rich Smith at @richsssmith.   Resources “Evaluating the Role of Incarceration in Public Safety with Criminologist Damon Petrich” - Hacks & Wonks    “Casual Friday with Crystal Fincher & Besa Gordon” by Patricia Murphy & Brandi Fullwood from KUOW    “Officer Responding to Overdose Call Killed Woman In Marked Intersection Where City Canceled Safety Project” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola    “Three pedestrians taken to hospital after collision in South Seattle” by Amanda Zhou from The Seattle Times    Follow Ryan Packer twitter: @typewriteralley   “Prevent traffic deaths with proven solutions for Seattle streets” by Gordon Padelford from The Seattle Times    “WA bill would make school meals free for all students” by Ruby de Luna from KUOW   “WA lawmakers consider minimum wage requirement for incarcerated workers” by Libby Denkman & Sarah Leibovitz from KUOW   “Supreme Court Ruling Could Allow Washington to Tax the Rich” by Will Casey from The Stranger   “Public safety is focus of new prosecutorial units” by Christine Clarridge from Axios    “Vote Yes on Initiative 135” from The Stranger    “Who's running for Seattle City Council in 2023“ by Melissa Santos from Axios   “Formerly Unhoused, Andrew Ashiofu Wants to Fight for Housing Progress on City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Central District Resident Joy Hollingsworth Is Running for City Council” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Urbanist Alex Hudson Enters Council Race to Replace Sawant” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger “Assistant Attorney General Sarah Reyneveld Is Running for King County Council” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I am a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, we re-aired our conversation with criminologist Damon Petrich, who led the most comprehensive analysis of incarceration and crime data to-date, which found that incarceration doesn't reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Damon and I talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. Also today, I appeared on KUOW's Casual Friday podcast - we'll put a link to that in the show notes and on the website. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show, today's co-host: Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet, Rich Smith. [00:01:30] Rich Smith: Thanks for having me again - so good to be back. [00:01:33] Crystal Fincher: Great to have you back. This is a week that was packed full of news. Starting off - some news that really sucked - really sad and tragic events happened this week when it came to pedestrians being hit by cars. One killed by an SPD officer driving a car on the way to a substance abuse call. And another - family, a parent and two kids, hit in a crosswalk. It has just been a horrible week. What happened and where do we stand on this? [00:02:15] Rich Smith: Yeah, it was on Monday - Fire was called to an OD [overdose] call, cops responded along with that. And a young woman, 23-year-old woman, named Jaahnavi was crossing the road - she's a grad student. And the cop hit her with her car. She died later of injuries later that evening. The cops slow rolled the information on this, at first saying that there had been a collision, putting the blame on the fire department. And then later on Tuesday, they finally confirmed that she died after being hit. And it's a tragedy, and it's one of those stories that show just how few choices we have - or how constrained our choices really are - by policy that we don't even see. We think we're out here making decisions - we think people are out here making decisions - but those decisions are circumscribed. And there are so many of those policies hidden in the background of this story. For instance, that intersection where she crossed was due for a while to get a revamp - a protected intersection - that would have prevented, or that may have prevented, this tragedy from occurring. We haven't seen the video - I don't know where she crossed in the crosswalk, I know she was in the crosswalk. But the design of this protected intersection may have prevented that from happening. The mayor took it out of his budget this year due to a giant $140 million hole that they had to work around and as a result of slowing real estate market, et cetera. The City Council didn't put that money back in and so - obviously, work wouldn't have started on that project before this incident happened - I don't want to get into butterfly effect stuff. But had we moved on that earlier, had we treated this Vision Zero - the city's plan to reduce all pedestrian deaths to zero - more seriously than we have been, if we'd been prioritizing that earlier, then tragedies like this could have been prevented. Also, there's the policy of having a police officer respond alongside a medic when they're doing an OD call. My understanding is that if the medic has to give the person who's suspected of having an OD Narcan, they want a cop there in case there's some kind of violent response to reversing the overdose with Narcan - and so they request this backup. The person who the medic checked on declined medical assistance at the time - it turns out it wasn't an emergency, but they were called. I'm not sure who called or why, but they were called because they thought someone was having an OD - and now it creates this emergency situation where if the cop threw on his lights, then they're racing to the scene. It's hard to really put the whole picture together because we haven't seen the video. We only know what the police are saying and what Fire is saying, but it does seem to be this confluence of questionable policy decisions that allowed for this tragedy to happen. [00:06:18] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And at least the information that we have now - as you said, the police have been slow to release information - but it appears that dispatch made the call to dispatch the police, that it wasn't actually requested by the fire department. But they were co-dispatched to the call along with Fire once they determined that was the case with the call, which is questionable - these are the things that we're talking about. So many times you talk about how all of these issues are related - how when we're talking about housing, we're talking about poverty. How we're talking about health, we're talking about equity - and so many of these failures came together. And just overall, even with the timing of this thing, this is a result of longstanding neglect. How long have we been talking about how unsafe this is? And this was just one pedestrian collision and injury this week. We also had a family mowed down in a crosswalk. [00:07:20] Rich Smith: Did you see that video? [00:07:21] Crystal Fincher: I unfortunately did see that video. We have to do better. I think a lot of people are wondering - we hear lip service being given to this year, after year, after year. Certainly there have been some electeds who have tried to propose money and others - Tammy Morales comes to mind - but overall between the council and the mayor, we have not gotten this to be a priority. And we have to do something different, we have to do something substantial. If we had the amount of poisoning deaths by some source that we do with pedestrian deaths and collisions, we would be doing something about it. If there were a Brown person walking around and beating up people to this magnitude, we would be doing something different. This is a crisis. And just because it's happening to people outside of cars doesn't mean that we just give thoughts and prayers and don't do anything. And it's feeling like the situation where we all know we need to do more to stop gun violence, yet so much action isn't taken. There's an excellent article that was written last year, I think, by Gordon Padelford at The Urbanist, which kind of goes through - Hey, this is what percentage of pedestrian deaths are caused by this type of issue, this is the recommendation or the ask to solve it - this is what can happen. There's short term stuff, there's long term stuff. I just hope to see some action here. And it appears that there are some things that don't require the building of new infrastructure, but some signal timings - we need to look at how we allow drivers to turn both right on red and left turns - and we can be doing those in a safer way. And just all of that. I hope we get real serious about this across the region real quick. We just talked last week about the alarming skyrocketing pedestrian deaths and injuries across South King County. And I follow Ryan Packer on Twitter and their Patreon, and they cover the majority of these pedestrian-involved collisions. And just watching the amount of those come down the timeline is sobering. [00:09:45] Rich Smith: That's another sort of system - just people being in their cars and having car brain and forgetting - the great lie of the car is that you're not a 2-ton steel cage traveling down the road at 70 mph or 40 mph that could just absolutely wreck the fragile human body. For some, the car - you don't feel like that when you're in the car and that - so we got to kill the car in our head. [00:10:16] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and the mind frame that comes with it - I drive, I have a car. I drive a lot less than I used to, but still drive. And I've had feelings before - of that feeling of inconvenience and wanting to get somewhere as fast as possible, but I really do think it takes a reframing to be like - Okay, I am in a 2-ton vehicle that can instantly kill or maim someone. It's okay if it takes me literally two minutes longer to get somewhere. When we talk about traffic calming, when we talk about signal timing, or not taking a right on red - yeah, it may delay you for 30 seconds - for 30 seconds, right? It may delay you for two minutes. But if the trade off of two minutes - that we can plan around, we can manage - is people not getting gruesomely killed, that's a trade off we can make. And we need to have more conversations that you don't just have free rein and cars aren't this - the ultimate priority above and beyond anything else. We have to also address - everything is culture now, but car culture - and how we teach people to drive, how we talk about driving, how we design around that. Until we reframe that it's okay if cars stop every now and then or go slow every now and then, we're going to continue to see this kind of stuff. [00:11:42] Rich Smith: Absolutely. And when I drive, I feel myself like I just turn - I'm like, when I'm a pedestrian, I'm like, are you kidding me? It's the - the roads are ours, I'm fragile, I could be destroyed by your machines. Stop, slow down - in the crosswalk, you monsters. But then when I'm in a car, I'm like - all of these pedestrians don't care about their lives at all. They're walking into the middle of the road. They're dressed the exact same color of the night. They need to get out of my way - blah, blah, blah. So I have to consciously remind myself - I'm in a climate-controlled environment. I'm listening to the music that I want to listen to, or the radio that I want to listen to, or the podcast I want to listen to - like Hacks & Wonks. And if I need to pause - to pay more careful attention to my surroundings - then I'm the one who should because I'm the one who's basically a weapon right now. It just, yeah - and it's - you'll get there, it's not going to take - even if you're 30 seconds later, two minutes late, you'll get there. People will welcome you - so just chill out, cars. [00:12:52] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. This week - more action in our legislative session that we have this week - there were two bills in particular that caught my eye. One to make all school lunches in Washington free, which I think is an excellent idea. And another to require that incarcerated workers at least make minimum wage, because right now they don't and it's basically slavery. What's your take on these bills? [00:13:24] Rich Smith: Yeah, it's weird to make anybody - they're kind of related - but it's weird to make children go to a place for - whatever, 7-8 hours, and then make them buy their food there if they want to not operate at a caloric deficit. And poverty is high. Child poverty is shockingly high. And it just shouldn't be an expense. As somebody who went to school and - I could have made my lunch before I went, but I always just tried to bum money from other people so that I could have the pizza or whatever at school. So I don't know, it was always embarrassing to bring lunch. And so I just always wanted to have the school lunch. I remember being - as a kid, school lunch was somehow prestige - even though in popular culture, school lunch is stereotypically lunch lady giving you neon food or whatever. In any event, it's just - I really would have benefited from this bill. I wouldn't have had to convince so many of my fellow students to give me dimes and quarters so that I could get bad pizza or whatever. But yeah, philosophically, kids shouldn't have to pay for food. Poor families shouldn't have to be scrounging up a couple of bucks just so that they can eat. And similarly, if we are forcibly incarcerating people and they are working, they should make the minimum wage and not, as Representative Tarra Simmons - who brought this bill to the Legislature - testifies, 42 cents an hour because of how much the jail can just dock from your pay for medicine, for this, for that, for this financial obligation, for this financial obligation. Basically, you're paying to incarcerate yourself. You're paying the state to make you less free, to take away your freedom. And you are effectively a slave. It's unconscionable. [00:15:33] Crystal Fincher: It is unconscionable. And when this is an exception in the constitutional amendment banning slavery - means it's literally slavery. These people are working and doing the same kind of work that everyone else is. Just because they're incarcerated does not mean that their labor has no value. And there is such a problem with making elements of our criminal legal system profitable for people - we have seen how corrupting and how corrosive that is. We should not be incentivizing people to lock people up and keep them locked up. We just re-aired our midweek show about how problematic carceral solutions are, and it just makes no sense. And also we spend so much time and energy, so much administrative resources on managing who gets lunch, who doesn't get lunch - just tracking and doing the - tracking who does qualify for free lunch, and who doesn't, and who's behind, and how to collect it. That all takes money too. We're requiring them to be there, just as you said. And the consequences - say a family is having trouble affording food, so their kid needs to be shamed and humiliated and can't eat or get something - how does that make any kind of sense? And also, we just got so much data from the unfortunately brief free school lunches that we provided nationwide and what kind of an impact that had on child poverty, on child hunger - was absolutely a positive and way more transformative than most people even anticipated. Really, why are we not doing this? It seems cruel not to. So I'm very excited to see both of those making their way through the Legislature. Also big news this week - on the wealth tax issue - the Supreme Court heard the capital gains tax case. How is that playing out? Where do we stand with that? [00:17:45] Rich Smith: Well, we'll see. They just heard - that is, the Supreme Court just heard - oral arguments on the case yesterday. It's difficult, really, to follow the arguments because Justice Steven González is so fine that I have trouble paying attention to what the lawyers are arguing about, the difference between the excise tax and income tax, etc. I'm joking - he's a good-looking man, but he didn't actually talk that much during the oral arguments. But he did ask a kind of prescient question, or a useful question, that was interesting to me. This is all to say that - yeah, we'll see - they presented their arguments yesterday. Backing up a second, the State Legislature - after a decade of arm twisting and back bending and watering down bill after bill after bill - finally decided to pass a capital gains tax on the richest 8,000 Washingtonians. That is a 7% tax whenever you realize capital gains, which is a financial asset over - $250 million is the threshold of the tax. If you cash out stocks for more than $250 million, then you're going to get hit with a 7% tax. A bunch of conservatives sued and said this isn't a excise tax or a sales tax - a transactional tax as the state is arguing - this is an income tax because that property, or that $250 million is property. According to the State of Washington's Constitution, that's income. State's taxing that money at 7%. Constitution says you can only tax property at 1%, so it's unconstitutional. Also, the fact that there's an exemption means it's not taxed uniformly, so that's unconstitutional. They also argue that it's a violation of - they have some kind of commerce clause argument that I didn't understand and that didn't seem to apply. It didn't seem particularly sophisticated - the justices didn't seem particularly bothered by it during oral arguments yesterday, but that's basically the gist. And it's up to these political figures - these justices after hearing the arguments - to determine whether or not we're going to allow the state to raise $500 million to pay for education. The state hoped that they're - or asked the court to give a decision before April 18th on the matter, so that the lawmakers who are busy writing the state budget can know if they can include this $500 million that we raised from the capital gains tax in their bottom lines or not. The Supreme Court didn't seem bothered by that, didn't seem like they were moved by that request and will release a decision on their own time - a little sort of cross-branch flexing back and forth there during the oral arguments. But we know that on some Thursday, sometime in the next few months, we'll get an answer to whether or not we can tax them. And there's also the possibility that the court could, in their decision, say - Actually, income tax - or income isn't property. Those court rulings that determine that, the court decisions that determined that in the '30s were wrong. And that would allow Washington State to pass income taxes for the first time in over 100 years, which would really give us the opportunity to rebalance the tax code that is right now balanced on the backs of the poor. Every recession we dig ourselves out of - we do it from sales tax, property taxes, taxes on gross receipts of small businesses and other businesses - and large businesses, frankly. And that's the most regressive way to do it. And we're the most regressive state - in terms of taxes - in the country. So there's a slim possibility that we could change the whole game, but I don't know if they'll do that. They don't seem hungry to do that. [00:22:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And Will Casey had a great breakdown of this all in The Stranger, in a piece that we'll link in the show notes and in our social media threads on this show. But to your point, they can - they do actually have a few different choices. This isn't necessarily just a binary - it's allowed or not allowed. They could agree with the lower court that it's not allowed. They could also agree with the Attorney General's opinion, which doesn't take any view on overturning the prior case that said income is property, we can't have an income tax, and just say it's an excise tax. It doesn't even get into the other discussion. And then that third option, as you articulated, can have them overturn the ruling that made an income tax illegal. One of the most foremost Washington State constitutional scholars and professors that we have in the state - Hugh Spitzer and some others - thought that that isn't likely - just overturning the whole thing and finding that income tax is legal to do in the state is unlikely. That if something does happen, they predict it would be agreeing that it's an excise tax. But who knows? They can do anything. We will see what happens. [00:24:01] Rich Smith: Sorry, just one correction. We can have an income tax, but it just has to be uniform and it can't be more than 1% because that's - yeah. But yeah, just to clarify - we all know, and I know - I said it too. But it's just - it's like a shorthand - it's we can't do an income tax that makes sense - is what we mean when we say we can't do an income tax. [00:24:17] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. A graduated income tax. Thank you for that clarification. [00:24:21] Rich Smith: Yeah. Yeah, but I agree that - listening to oral arguments in any case, and especially in a case like this, just makes me go crazy because the arguments are never about the moral value of the question at hand. The judges aren't deciding whether or not it's - we should have a capital gains tax if the Legislature does it. It's based on previous case law triangulated over the course of many different years - is it technical - are these definitions, does this definition of capital gains and income and property align with the plain language of this law or not, and to what degree do we care that it does? It seems like it's all up to us to decide, right? You've got Noah Purcell, the Assistant Attorney General, arguing on behalf of the state saying stuff like, This is an excise tax because when we're taxing the capital gain, we're taxing it at the point of the transaction - not taxing the actual - we're taxing the transaction, not the money, but the ability to do the transaction, not the money that you get coming in. And the other side says like, In all 50 states, or in every other state in the country, they have capital gains taxes - but those taxes are called income taxes. And yet here we have a capital gains tax and suddenly it's not an income tax? And then the state says, Well, we're the only state in the country that defines income as property, right? So it just dwindled - the entire argument dwindles into definitions and it just makes you feel insane while you're watching it, because it has nothing to do with this. It has little to do with the substance of the policy matter. So we just make it up anyway and decide - the entire law is based on language, which is quicksand, it's soup, it changes constantly. The definitions are made from language and so their meanings change over time, and yet we've got these clerics in robes pretending like they're mystical beings seeing the true intent of the law or whatever and just argue. It's just, it's witchery. But anyway, I just really - if you want to feel that, if you want to feel insane, I recommend going to TVW and watching the oral arguments. [00:26:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will stay tuned to what happens and await the upcoming some Thursday where we eventually hear what the fate of the capital gains tax is. Also this week, we heard from our new King County Prosecutor, Leesa Manion, about some of her plans for the office - the establishment of some new units focusing on gun violence, sexual assault, economic crimes, and others. How did you view this? [00:27:27] Rich Smith: Rearranging the office chairs? I don't know, right? Creating these units and - on the one hand, making it someone's job to focus on certain crimes does matter, right? It changes the focus and the thrust of the work that gets done on a daily basis. But I don't know to what degree that's going to fix the problems in the office. You're not really dealing with - it's not like we're still concentrating on "repeat property crime" which seems to be, what, a euphemism for graffiti, which is one of the - or, broken windows - which is one of City Attorney Ann Davison's big areas of focus as well as the mayor's office. But I don't - I'm not quite sure, really, how this rearrangement will impact the scope and work of the office. They don't expect it to help knock down the 4,000-case backlog that developed over the course of the pandemic. They're not really - there's some stuff to like in there in terms of focusing on diversion, which would be better than if we had Jim Ferrell in there, who was the hard right - or a conservative Democrat, I should say - running against her in the November elections last year, but I'm not sure. What's your take on it? [00:29:17] Crystal Fincher: You know, I am reserving judgment. I'm willing to see how this turns out. It does actually matter - to create units where people are focusing, where they're able to share resources to investigate and - within our current system of both policing and among the prosecutor - investigation is an important thing. That's the meat of how we figure out who does stuff and especially if we want to stop playing whac-a-mole with people doing low-level crimes that are often the result of some other root cause. The ability to move further up the chain and address some of those systemic issues, or if they are actually targeting organized retail theft or domestic violence, intimate partner abuse - to really go after people who are doing that, or who are defrauding seniors, and going after wage theft - that requires focus and investigation and specialized resources and they're not going to get pulled away on to whatever the newfangled thing is that they're focusing on that week. And that's shown to have an impact and make a difference. I also recognize that this is one piece in the criminal legal system puzzle. And on that investigation issue, we still have issues with police who are doing the frontline work in this and not investigating many things. And having those who were in investigative roles moved out to patrol - because of their conversations on staffing and feeling that they need to do that. And then we wind up in situations where we aren't investigating sexual assault. And even when there's gun violence and a business owner has a bullet that they collected that went through their window, the police aren't showing up for days or weeks to pick that up and even process that. So it's like what can the prosecutor do if police are only focused on patrol, surveillance, low-level crime and not able to put the resources into investigation in order to address these issues. So it feels like everything's a mess systemically and they're trying to wade through that. But I do think that - we know that certain interventions with gun violence, we know that certain types of diversion, we know that focusing on crimes of abuse and manipulation and fraud make a difference. I was excited to actually see named - wage theft - which is one of the biggest crimes being perpetrated in the City, that so often doesn't get talked about because it is perpetrated by more wealthy people, business owners. But that also comes with a pause, because in the quote that I saw in the paper, it talked about, Hey, we - last year, we filed more charges against organized retail theft than any others before. The Stranger had done excellent reporting on what they call organized retail theft - sure does look the same as small-time petty theft. And so if we're laying out this big - saying we're focusing on wage theft and economic crimes and fraud and organized retail theft - but every focus, all the resources, and all of the energy is going towards this "organized retail theft" that looks like the same old theft that we've been dealing with that is not very organized. We'll have to see how this turns out. So willing to give the benefit of the doubt, see what happens, see what kind of an impact can be made, but I'm definitely waiting to see what the impact is. [00:33:23] Rich Smith: Yeah, could just - want to triple underline that. The categories look okay to me. It'll be, it'll just be telling to see where they put, or the prosecutors put, their emphasis. [00:33:34] Crystal Fincher: Okay. With that, also wanted to talk about Initiative 135 on the docket. There is an election coming up on Valentine's Day, February 14th, to decide whether Seattle is going to have social housing and The Stranger took a stance on it. What did you guys decide? [00:33:56] Rich Smith: The Stranger Election Control Board is Pro - we want you to vote Yes on Initiative 135 for social housing. It's not perfect, but it is good. And so it's worth, it's worth your time. It's worth your Yes vote. Certainly. [00:34:15] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely is. I was in a conversation yesterday - with Axios actually - and talking about what the prospects of this look like. But I also think this is an interesting time - with all of these tech layoffs that we're experiencing and talk of an economic recession, there've been some people who have been fortunate enough to be insulated from the worry and concern about being priced out of Seattle and feeling secure with income. And there are lots of conversations about the working class and whether different workers, or a different class of worker, not feeling the same kind of solidarity or vulnerability to some of the challenges that other people have been facing when it comes to trying to fight for their rights, for unionization, for recognizing that they could be a paycheck or two away from financial instability, poverty or homelessness. And there are a lot of new people contending with some of that insecurity. This is unfortunate wherever and however it happens - absolutely not rooting for anyone to lose their job - there's a lot of pain and struggle and uncertainty going on now. But I do think this is all part of this same conversation and crisis that we're facing - we have a whole new class of people wondering if they can afford to remain in Seattle. If they are upside down on their mortgages with the way things are right now, if they can afford rent - continue to afford rent if they lose their job and don't get another one very frequently - how we're going to weather this predicted recession that's coming. So it really does seem like the time for varied action, new action, different action, not letting perfect get in the way of the good, and do something here. And this seems like it has a track record elsewhere. The reasoning behind it is sound. And let's kick this off. And let's see if we can get this right. And if it needs fine tuning as we go along, let's do that. But it really seems like the time for some different decisive action is now. [00:36:39] Rich Smith: Yeah, one of the members in the SECB highlighted this initiative as optimistic. And it's something you can rally behind, it's something you can really organize around - not just to get it passed, but once it's implemented, and once they start going through the steps of actually creating the social housing - it is a site for organizing, a site for movement building. And that's just - there's so few exciting, actual things like that - having a public developer, which this initiative would create, to acquire and build housing for people between 0% and 120% of the area median income that the City would own and make affordable - that is lower than 30% of your income, if you're living in those buildings - forever, it's just exciting. And yeah, it's forward thinking. And as we argue in the endorsement, we suck at thinking for the future - Seattle does a horrible job of thinking ahead. And I think it's because a lot of people who are here don't want to. They have - a lot of people have their house, who have their little nautical village, like being in the corner of the country, have this identity of being away from it all and that's why we're out here in the first place - and just emotionally blocked out the 2010s, where people flooded into the city, into the area - because of how prosperous all the companies were, because of all these opportunities. And then just did nothing to build the infrastructure for it. And this has been a curse of this town going back decades. 1970 - we didn't get the trades, and so the trades went to Atlanta. In 1990, or '95, we settled for a much smaller light rail extension that we possibly could. We have made the mistake of not making room for people who want to move to this beautiful place time and time again. And it is the root cause of so much of the pain and struggle that we see outside. And this initiative comes along and says, Okay, let's have a 50-year plan. And let's start now. Let's add another tool to the housing toolbox that can - if we plant this seed, grow into thousands and thousands of affordable units built sustainably, with union labor, that can keep housing - a certain amount of housing stock - affordable forever. Not like affordable housing - government-subsidized housing - which can go back on the unaffordable market in 30 years most of the time. And not like the market rate housing, which nobody's been able to afford for as long as I've been alive. But permanently affordable housing. And, yeah, as we mentioned, and as the advocates for this initiative will mention, it's working in France, it's working in Vienna, Austria, it's working in Singapore, it's working all around the globe. And it can work here - granted, very different housing markets, very different tax structures - in those places. But we can do it here, and we should. Because as Representative Frank Chopp of all people, who has dedicated his public life to building affordable housing, said about the affordable housing system we have now - it doesn't work. We need to try something else. And this is that something else. So it's exciting, and people should vote for it. [00:40:36] Crystal Fincher: Also coming on a later ballot to you - in August, in the primary - will be a number of councilmembers vying for several open seats. We had several announcements so far, some new ones this week. Who's running for City Council? Who's not running for City Council? And what does it mean? [00:40:57] Rich Smith: Everybody is running for City Council, it seems like. Well, last week - was it? Kshama Sawant, who represents District 3, the central area of the City, announced her plans to leave. And this sort of spurred some people to announce, though others had done it around that time or a little before that time. But it's really motivating people to jump in. And so yeah, we've had a number of people jump in in that race, in that City Council race. Joy Hollingsworth - runs Hollingsworth Cannabis, Central District resident, comes from a lineage of civil rights organizers - and she's in, she announced on MLK Day. We've got Alex Hudson - just announced this week - who was the Executive Director of Transportation Choices and runs the neighborhood board over at First Hill. Andrew Ashiofu, the Co-Chair of the Seattle LGBTQ Commission, jumped in to the race. Hannah has got great profiles on all of these people - you should check them out at The Stranger. And just this morning, Sarah Reyneveld, who is a Assistant Attorney General - she's jumping into the King County race to replace Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who was on the King County Council in District 4, representing Ballard, Queen Anne, Belltown, South Lake Union, that kind of area, on the County Council. She was in that seat for two terms. So Reyneveld is trying to swoop in and keep her legacy going there. And yeah, we've got another ex-Amazon worker, who was legally fired, is jumping into the race to replace Lisa Herbold. She was not one of the ones reportedly recruited by Bruce Harrell - still waiting for that person, whoever he is, to jump in at some point. So yeah, a flurry of activity and many more to come, I'm sure, as the balance of the City Council is up for grabs this year. [00:43:21] Crystal Fincher: This is going to be interesting with so many open seats - Lisa Herbold, Kshama Sawant, Alex Pedersen are not running again. We're going to see a lot of turnover, the potential for a switch in the balance of power with the council. And as you said, there are great profiles in The Stranger about some of these candidates. I think Capitol Hill Seattle and The Urbanist also had a couple of profiles. We will continue to see what they say, but I will say - one, it's early. It's early - running for office is hard and people are starting to get this together. But I do hope to see overall a greater articulation of vision. And hearing what they actually want to do, what they want to accomplish for the City and for the residents of Seattle. I was struck - in a few different situations where - being asked about issues, policy, where do you stand on this, do you support social housing, do you support this or that? And - Well, I'm not sure. I'm interested in hearing more about it. I want to hear what the community has to say. I'm looking forward to bringing people together to discuss it. I support this, but don't know if I can commit to it before I hear more information. And this is a time where you are running and making the case that you are the person most qualified to make this change. And to bring about the change that a lot of people are frustrated that they haven't been seeing after hearing promises for so long. And so it really seems like a missed opportunity to not at least take a stand on some things, let people know where you're at - and that may be a differentiator for people in crowded primaries. If someone is willing to stand up with certainty on issues and others aren't, that's absolutely a differentiator. And this is across a variety of issues, a variety of candidates. This is not about one candidate - have seen this widespread. So I do hope we see a greater articulation and greater commitments on what they're going to be, because I do worry about people who are afraid of offending people this early in the game. Campaigns are hard - don't get me wrong - but they don't compare to governing and the type of pressure and accountability that's there. And so if you cannot commit here, what are we going to get when you're on the council? [00:46:02] Rich Smith: I'm trying to hold it in, Crystal - but yeah, I couldn't agree more. Why are you running for office? You decided to announce - you could control that decision. If you don't have definitive answers for where you're at on problems that have existed for years in this city, if you still need to learn more from the community, hear more from the community on hiking the JumpStart Tax to fill budget gaps, or where you're at on pedestrian improvements, or where you're at on this or that - then why did you decide to run? All you're telling me whenever you say that - when you say, I need to listen to the community more on this issue - is that you are running as a matter of course, because you want the power of the position, not that you have something that you want to do with that power. And saying, Ah, but how I will wield my power is to be a collaborator, or to listen, to bring the community together, bring everyone around the table - then you are saying that - that you suck. I don't know how to say it - that you're going to defer to whoever's interests seem to have the most sway over - I don't know. You don't have principles in that moment, right? You're just a funnel for other people to use. And as we've seen in the past, that means you're going to bend to big business, you're not going to stand up for stuff that you know is right. And that's, or at least that's what that signals, and it just boggles the mind. And then this little ouroboros of the community asked me to run - Okay, great. What are you going to do? I'm going to listen to community. Well, what did the community - why do they want you to run? Presumably they want you to run because they already agreed with you on stuff. And so just - trust your instincts, say what's right - and people will respond. I don't know why everyone's trying to not offend X. I know why - because they don't want to offend the money - because they need the money, and they need the endorsements, and they need the support in order to win. And so whatever - people aren't going to say what they actually believe. It's either that, or they actually don't believe anything and there's just a transparent grab for power on assumption that you've been working toward this, and so it is yours. It's disgusting to see, frankly. And I don't know - maybe I'm just getting over this, but I'm - it's, it's, I find - it sucks. It's offensive. [00:48:47] Crystal Fincher: I'm gonna choose to try and have a charitable interpretation of where they may be. It is early in the campaign. Maybe they haven't figured out the best way to articulate where they stand yet. But I do think they need to hurry up and get to it. Anyone - you don't have to be elected to bring people together and listen to community. The reason why you run for office is to have the power to make decisions. It's to make those decisions. We give you that authority through an election. And so we need to hear about what decisions you plan on making. We need to hear about the policy that you plan on crafting and passing in specificity. That is why you run. We are not trying to elect a convener here. We're not trying to elect a moderator for the community, someone to conduct listening sessions. We can do that any day of the week. We can pay other people for that. But only a few people can sit and make those decisions. And so hearing about those is really important. And to your point, Rich, we have heard that from people who have done nothing, from people who have gone back on their promises that they made while they were running, from people who did say - I'm different, money has no hold on me. But lo and behold, they wind up doing different things than they said when they were running. And it's exactly what their list of top donors wants. That's what we're used to seeing when we hear this. And so a red flag automatically pops up. Maybe that's not ultimately where these people are going to be coming from, maybe that's not their intent, maybe they're still working on that - I would encourage them to work on it quickly. [00:50:34] Rich Smith: Yeah. I agree. And that's - thinking of Sawant - that's part of what made her refreshing was - she was just like, she just tried to do what aligned with her principles. She had no power, so she ended up spending a lot of time just like dunking on her colleagues a lot in ways that were not particularly productive or whatever. But she was like, Okay, we want to protect abortion in Seattle. Let's pay for it all. Let's pay for all abortions. Here's a plan to pay for everybody's abortions every year. It costs $3.5 million. Sign it up. Oh, we got a $140 million budget hole. Let's raise the JumpStart Tax to fill it. Sure, we're going to have to fill it with something else in the meantime and then backfill with JumpStart, but let's do that. And so it's not hard to have a policy position and to try to do what you, try to hold onto that principle when you finally make it into office. And so I just wish people wouldn't hedge. And if you say something and then you change your mind later, you can just - you just do that. You could say I changed my mind for this reason or that reason. And then you won't have the - oh, broken promise mailer, or whatever that you're scared of. People just don't know how to be people on the campaign, and it's incredibly depressing. And it just takes so much time to parse. And I amplify your call and your hope that people will get better quickly on these issues. [00:52:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think it's going to be a competitive advantage for those - who do still have to hit all your campaign marks, do the things that get votes and connect with people. But the way to connect with people is to tell them concretely how you plan to improve their day-to-day life. And with that, we will wrap up today's Hacks & Wonks. Thank you so much for listening on this Friday, January 27th, 2023. I cannot believe the month of January just evaporated like that. How dare it. But we're almost to Black History Month. Anyway, Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Associate Editor of The Stranger and noted poet Rich Smith. You can find Rich on Twitter @richsssmith, with three S's in the middle. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii, with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time. [00:53:31] Rich Smith: Thanks - bye.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, political consultant and host Crystal Fincher is joined by Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett! They catch up with all of the news out of the legislature this week, as well as Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant not seeking re-election, a dodgy push-poll, South King County pedestrian fatalities on the rise, and lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI).  Breaking down the flurry of news out of the legislature this week, Crystal and Erica discuss proposed legislation for a wealth tax, middle housing, lowering the blood alcohol limit for driving, limiting rent increases, reducing the disparity between products advertised towards women versus men, alternatives to jail for behavioral health crises, and a potential expansion of law enforcement's ability to conduct vehicle pursuits.  The trend of current Seattle City Councilmembers announcing they won't seek re-election continued this week when councilmember Kshama Sawant revealed she won't again this year. With four of the seven open seats on the council this year without incumbents, this years' election is guaranteed to bring a large change to the city's leadership.  A seemingly non-scientific push-poll designed to show support for a potential ballot measure to fund more police hires and spending was sent to a number of Seattle residents. They use it as a jumping-off to discuss manipulative polling and how it's used to justify unpopular policy. Crystal and Erica also discuss the alarming increase in pedestrian fatalities in the region, especially in south King County. The data supports the need to make wide-spread improvements to our pedestrian infrastructure to truly make our cities safe for people who walk and bike.  Crystal and Erica end this week's show looking at two lawsuits against the Low Income Housing Institute. A former resident has sued the organization, claiming that LIHI illegally evicted them by not giving proper notice. The case hinges on whether LIHI's housing is emergency shelter or transitional housing, the latter requiring stronger resident protections. LIHI is also facing accusations that the conditions of their tiny house villages are not adequate to support their residents. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Erica Barnett at @ericacbarnett.   Resources “Tackling Poverty with Misha Werschkul of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center” - Hacks & Wonks   “WA lawmakers trying again to tax wealth, as part of nationwide effort”  by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   “Two State-Level Housing Bills Aim to Stabilize Rent and Protect From Rent Gouging” by Vee Hua from The South Seattle Emerald   Washington Coalition for Police Accountability's letter on vehicle pursuit bills SB 5352 and HB 1363   “State Proposals Aim to Lower Traffic Deaths by Improving Driver Behavior” by Ryan Packer from Publicola   “Washington lawmakers discuss an alternative to jail for mental health crises” by Doug Nadvornick from KUOW   “Seattle City Council Member Kshama Sawant Will Not Seek Reelection” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “Why I'm Not Running Again for City Council” by Kshama Sawant from The Stranger   “South King County Sees Alarming Jump in Pedestrian Fatalities” by Andrew Engelson from The Urbanist   “WALeg Wednesday: Saldaña Drops Bill to End Jaywalking” by Ray Dubicki from The Urbanist   “Former Tiny House Village Resident Sues Nonprofit, Alleging Unlawful Eviction” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola “Homelessness Authority, LIHI Clashed Over Reporting of Two Deaths at Tiny House Village” by Erica C. Barnett from Publicola   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast, get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of the Seattle Nice podcast, and author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse, and Recovery, Erica Barnett. [00:01:08] Erica Barnett: Hello, hello. [00:01:09] Crystal Fincher: Hello, hello - and welcome back. Always a pleasure to have you and your information and insights. Think today we will start off just talking about the week in the Washington Legislature, now that our legislative session is off and running. What did you see this week? [00:01:28] Erica Barnett: There's a lot going on as always. This is a long session, so there's a lot more policy legislation coming our way. There's a proposal to revive a wealth tax that has moved forward but then floundered in previous sessions - it would be a 1% tax on intangible assets like stocks and bonds - and so we'll see how that goes this year, maybe third time is the charm. Legislation is moving forward to allow sixplexes around the state in areas that are ordinarily or that are traditionally single-family only - that's Jessica Bateman's bill - and that too has been proposed in the past, but it may have a better chance this session because one of the sort of obstructionist legislators, Gerry Pollett, is no longer in charge of the committee that determines whether that bill goes forward. There's a bill that would reduce the limitations on police pursuits. Police say that they, that legislation from - I believe it was either last year or 2021 - limiting the instances in which they can go after somebody in their car to violent crimes and sex crimes is inhibiting their ability to chase what they call criminals - people committing property crimes and things like that. So that proposal is up and it has a lot of support from the right-wing pundit class. And I'm missing a lot of other stuff - there's a bill to lower the blood alcohol limit for driving while intoxicated to 0.05 percent like Utah, which has been really effective in that state in reducing drunk driving deaths and a whole lot more. [00:03:18] Crystal Fincher: I think that's a good start. There's lots of things just getting out of the gate and people trying to figure out what does have the momentum and the support to move forward versus what doesn't. I think another one that I was looking at - in addition to the middle housing bill, which came out with a ton of support in a hearing that it had earlier this week - are also some bills aiming to stabilize rent and to protect people from rent gouging. So looking at capping rent increases between 3 and 7% annually, depending on the rate of inflation. There's lots of conversations about, absolutely, the need to increase housing supply - there's widespread agreement on that, and that certainly is necessary to long-term affordability. In the short-term, things like rent stabilization policies are going to be critical for reducing displacement, evictions, and can make more of a difference in the short-term than increasing the housing supply. So lots of people sometimes have either-or conversations about those. I personally love the opinion that both are necessary and useful. I've talked about before - I've had neighbors with rent increases over 40%, had rent increases personally of over 30%. And that is just completely unaffordable for so many people, and contributing to the amount of unhoused people that we have - so definitely looking at that as another one. There was another bill that just was a cool thing - with Senator Manka Dhingra, who works with students and youth in the area to introduce legislation. And they suggested legislation, which she has introduced now, which seeks to bring equity between pricing for products marketed towards men versus women, and how frequently the same exact product marketed towards women will cost more for no apparent reason. And so a bill trying to address that - I think that was most of it. There was another interesting one this week about an alternative to jail for people experiencing mental health crises. Instead of going to jail - which really doesn't address the root cause - talking about a kind of a 24-hour cooling off center where instead of being an environment that is not helpful at de-escalating or calming situations, that a place that is not jail that can seek to maybe stabilize or calm down a situation to hopefully get a person in a place where they're either stabilized or in a place where they can seek services. It sounds like that is in the beginning stages of conversation - does not have funding attached to it yet, that would be necessary - but those are the things that have been on my radar. [00:06:32] Erica Barnett: That last bill that you mentioned, also from Senator Dhingra - it's based on a similar program in Arizona - and I'm getting this from KUOW's coverage. And it's interesting. I really want to read up more about it because it's a 23-hour hold, essentially. And we have various types of involuntary and voluntary mental health facilities. 23 hours - my immediate response is - what happens after that 23 hours? Do we just release people back to the streets with no care plan? I'm assuming that is not the intent, and I'm assuming that 23 hours actually must come from some limitation in the law. But at the same time as this bill is moving forward, there is a proposal that's going to be on the ballot in April in King County to create crisis care centers where people can just walk in and - voluntarily or be brought there by police, I suppose - to receive crisis care. And it's for a longer period than that 23 hours, so it feels like there is an emphasis right now on trying to get an entire continuum of care for people in crisis. And none of this has passed yet. As you said, the bill in the Legislature does not come with funding. But there is more discussion of this than I've ever seen in the state, and that's really encouraging because right now, primarily what we do is put people in jail when they're experiencing a crisis that is causing a threat or perceived threat to public safety - and that really can be extremely destabilizing for people. [00:08:17] Crystal Fincher: And then you had talked about the vehicle pursuit legislation that is being worked on this week - and really interesting dynamics in between those. There certainly are folks led by a lot of law enforcement organizations who are saying that they're being limited - lots of times we can't chase people, or crime is on the rise because we've been essentially handcuffed from going after "bad guys." Senator Dhingra talked about it - we did an interview with her on Hacks & Wonks and in a Democratic media availability this past week - talked again about there's no data showing a linkage between a rise in crime and the limitations that were placed on police pursuits before. Now they're asking for an expansion of those. It is unclear why that would make a difference according to their logic. One, they actually are still allowed to pursue those most serious cases and have been. We've had several stories over the past few weeks of pursuits that have happened. And this is really a question of is it worth pursuing something, someone - no matter what - if someone stole some Tide detergent, is it worth a high-speed pursuit on residential streets where people are being put at risk and innocent bystanders are frequently harmed and killed in these situations. In fact, in the city of Kent, a police officer was killed during a high-speed chase. These are actually really dangerous events that happen. And there's a real question about - is it worth the loss of life, when frequently if you can identify the person you can find and pick them up - which has happened frequently - after the fact without risking the lives of everybody in the area. So that's going to be an interesting conversation moving forward. Senator Dhingra chairs the Law & Justice Committee and is not eager to bring this up for a hearing, but there are certainly Republican legislators and some Democratic ones who are in favor of expanding the ability to conduct these pursuits. And so that conversation is definitely going to be one that we follow throughout this session. Looking at events this week in the City of Seattle, one notable announcement came earlier this week about a councilmember who is not going to be running again. What was announced? [00:11:06] Erica Barnett: Kshama Sawant - I laugh because this was just so widely covered compared to other councilmembers who are not running - part of a trend of councilmembers on the current council saying that they are not going to seek re-election, but Kshama Sawant will not be running in District 3. She's going to be starting some sort of labor-related organization, and I say that vaguely because there wasn't a whole lot of detail in her announcement about what this group will do, but it's called Workers Strike Back. And what it will not do, apparently, is pursue elected office for its members. Sawant's organization, Socialist Alternative, is a small, Trotskyist offshoot of the socialist parties in America, and it's definitely one of the smallest. And they have not had a lot of success at getting people elected around the country. Sawant was really their shining example of a member who actually made it to elective office and was in there for three terms, for 10 years - one of those terms was a two-year term. And so they're going on and they're saying that they're going to start a workers' movement worldwide, so it remains to be seen what will happen with that. But Sawant will no longer be on the council, and a lot of people are already lining up to try to replace her. [00:12:42] Crystal Fincher: There are. I saw a couple of candidates have declared already, which has also received a lot of coverage. You are right - we got some kind of brief mentions for prior councilmembers, including Lisa Herbold and Alex Pedersen, announcing that they are not running. But there seems to be strong opinions about Councilmember Sawant and therefore strong reactions in both directions - people sad to see someone who has been a fierce and unabashed advocate for issues about workers' rights for a long time. Councilmember - Mayor Harrell also said one thing he never doubted was her fierceness and advocacy. But this is definitely going to be a change on the council, and she has definitely left her mark - coming to office following the $15/hour initiative in the City of SeaTac that was run by a number of unions and advocates and folks. Following that, she ran in the City of Seattle as a dramatic underdog who people didn't really take seriously for almost all of the campaign - running on 15 Now, $15/hour in the City of Seattle - and running successfully, making Seattle one of the first cities - major cities - in the country to pass that minimum wage. And we've seen minimum wages increase across the country since then, with first SeaTac and then Seattle. So really interesting, certainly has been a lightning rod for a lot. So we will see who is going to wind up replacing her and how those campaigns take shape. What do you see as - just how this election season in the City of Seattle, with so many open seats - may unfold? [00:14:52] Erica Barnett: Yeah, I was just doing the math in my mind - because I have to do it every time - and four of the seven seats that are going to be up are definitely going to be open seats. Open seat elections are always more interesting in my mind because you don't have that built-in power of incumbency that sometimes keeps people away, but often we re-elect incumbents. So we'll see what - Andrew Lewis has already said that he is going to be running for re-election in District 1. I believe Tammy Morales will be running for re-election - I would put money on that at this point - not a lot of money, but a little money. And Councilmember Dan Strauss also seems to be showing signs that he will run for a second term up in District 6. So still, with four open seats, that's going to be - that's a number that could swing the tenor of the council if there's any kind of trend in whether those seats swing left or right. But importantly, one thing that happens when you have massive council turnover is you both get a sort of breath of fresh air, but you also lose a lot of institutional knowledge. I think, and I said on Seattle Nice, I think Sawant's actual influence on legislation has been somewhat overstated. She didn't achieve $15/hour in Seattle - that was very much a union effort that she got on board with, and it was a process of collaboration and compromise. Her thing was, as you said, it was 15 Now - just do it now and screw anybody that opposes it. But she also has institutional knowledge and institutional memory, as does Lisa Herbold who's been there for - been in the council milieu in some capacity for 25 years. It's going to be a loss of that kind of institutional knowledge, and I think that that is important when you're a city council going up against a mayor who - and I say going up against because they often clash. Historically, the council and the mayor are often on opposite sides of issues. When you don't have that institutional knowledge of how processes work and how legislation gets done and how the budget gets done, the mayor can roll you over. Bruce Harrell has a lot of experience himself being on the council for a long time, so it'll be interesting to see how that affects the power dynamic between the mayor and the council as well. [00:17:36] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely will be. I'm also interested in something else that we saw this week that flew a little bit under the radar, but definitely was noticed in a number of political circles - which was a public safety online poll that was sent to people via text, several people this week. In fact, so many that it really didn't seem like it was a randomly targeted poll. It looked like someone got a hold of some political lists and sent it out, but what did this poll seek to ask and what was it comprised of? [00:18:10] Erica Barnett: Yeah. Unfortunately, nobody sent me this poll - which if you're listening to this and you want to send me poll information, please do - but from what I gather, it's a push poll designed to elicit the feeling that Seattle is less safe and needs more police. The goal seems to be gauging support for a potential public safety funding initiative at some point in the future. And again, I don't know anything more about the idea behind this initiative, but it would essentially - or at least according to the poll - get the police department up to 1,450 officers within five years. The premise behind this is pretty flawed, which is that all we need is to pour more money into the police department and they will magically be able to hire 500, 600 new officers - when the police department itself has said that's not the issue. Now, they would define the issue as people don't want to be police officers in Seattle because there's insufficient support for police in institutions like the City Council. I would say police departments across the country have had trouble recruiting in the last three years and this is just a sign of that. But the police department has a lot of money - they fund tons of, hundreds of vacant positions every year - and so I don't think a massive increase in their budget is going to have a whole lot of impact because their budget is not really the problem. However you define the problem, it's not that we aren't funding police sufficiently. [00:19:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And this was really interesting - and for those who have listened and who know me, thank you for capturing this poll and sending me all of the screenshots. Just FYI - always do that with polls - take screenshots, send them on over if you get called for a poll, note what it is and all of the questions. Really interesting to see what people are asking, how people are asking. And with polls like this, I would not be surprised to see - obviously someone is thinking about this initiative - but looking at something like this, sometimes we see these announcements or stories in the media which cite numbers from vague polls. And this is not a real poll - this is someone sending around some surveys, very non-scientific, and the questions are almost comically skewed and written here. So it'll be interesting to see if someone uses this to try and signal support for the poll. I would also be interested just in seeing the raw numbers because traditionally, folks in the City of Seattle do not react well - even if this was a scientific poll - so this is going to be really curious to follow, but obviously someone is thinking about running a public safety initiative - really a police hiring initiative, which this really is. And it really does seem to be misguided. If there is one thing the City has definitely been trying to do for the past couple years, it's hire more police officers. How many times have they tried to increase hiring bonuses? They're advertising everywhere. This has been a monthly conversation in the City for, I feel like, two solid straight years - and if money could fix the problem, it would have. But we'll see how this continues to unfold. Another unfortunate bit of news that we have seen reinforced over and over again - but that has been made official - is just the increase in pedestrian fatalities and what kind of impact that is having. Some unfortunate news that we've seen, which has been reinforced repeatedly in news that we've seen, is pedestrian fatalities across the board have been increasing. There's been great coverage in The Urbanist about an alarming jump in pedestrian fatalities in South King County - just, it's really bleak. Really looking at the data put together by the State Department of Transportation - since 2013, the total number of crashes resulting in death or serious injury to pedestrians has climbed from 33 in 2013 to 95 in 2021. And that number continues to increase, and it is really alarming. And looking at the areas that are the most dangerous - Highway 99, also known as International Boulevard or Pacific Highway South, is one of the most dangerous roads for pedestrians in addition to Benson Highway or 104th - these go through several south County cities - but it's basically a high-speed highway in the middle of these cities. I remember they did work related to RapidRide Line A - a revamping of Pacific Highway South and International Boulevard - and unfortunately, one of the features that we saw was that there are long stretches of road with no pedestrian crossings. And mixing that with speeds that are 50 mph in some places is just a recipe for a disaster - when you're forcing people to sometimes take a - choose between walking directly across the street, which would be categorized as jaywalking, or taking a 10 to 15 minute detour to walk down to the nearest light or crossing and then walk all the way back, which is challenging for people with mobility issues - there are a lot of age and the disabled people, there are a number of services and health clinics on these roads. And so predictably, people are going to attempt to cross the road to avoid those really long crossings. To me, this was foreseeable just because of the design in these areas - and just mixing such high speeds in such high traffic pedestrian areas - and so it's unfortunate. These cities have recognized the problem, but some of the solutions that they've presented for the problem have been challenges. In fact, there was coverage of a meeting by Ryan Packer, actually, at the state where some City of Kent officers, at least who've been involved in traffic enforcement, really seemed to almost victim blame in the situation - talking about they would do emphasis patrols to help stop jaywalking, which is a cause of this. I would say that's more predictable impact of design there and people making a choice because sometimes they can't walk that distance. And also characterizing people who are on foot or even on bike as unhoused people or people in poverty, as opposed to lots of people who are commuting. This is a site where several accidents have - several fatalities and crashes that have injured and killed pedestrians have taken place. It's going to be - a new light rail station is in process of being built there. This is a very high traffic area, lots of commuters, it's near a Park and Ride - and so there's a whole cross-section of people, lots of professionals. I used to be frequently on transit as I was commuting to work via Metro in Seattle daily. It's just disappointing to see a lack of recognition of what some of these challenges are. The Urbanist addressed some of these in that article, but it is really, really challenging, and I wish the conversation in terms of solutions and increasing safety would focus more on things that didn't blame the victim or seek to target them, instead of help keep them safer. [00:26:51] Erica Barnett: Yeah. The idea that our roadway problems and our pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are because of individual behavior - it goes both ways, right? There's also an emphasis on people driving too fast, and this report does talk about people going - this report in The Urbanist talks about people going 80, 90 mph - and that is a huge problem and people should not be driving that fast. And two, these roads are designed for that. And the only way that you can make it possible for people to cross the road without "jaywalking" and the only way you can get people to stop speeding - and even driving the speed limit is often more than fast enough to cause fatalities - is you've got to put crosswalks in, you've got to slow down traffic. And the way you do that is through road design. And some of these - you can't necessarily go and narrow a highway - you can, but it's expensive and controversial. You can put in stoplights, you can put in bus lanes, you can do things that slow down the flow of cars - and I would say that it's not just that these things cost money, it's that they cost political will, and they're just - in a lot of these cities, and in the state, and including in Seattle - there is not the political will to do something that will slow down motorists. I remember - I don't live on Rainier anymore, but I lived right on Rainier for many years, or just a couple blocks off it - and I would use the 7 to get everywhere and run errands. And I am somebody who is physically capable of running across the street, and let me tell you - I did not go half a mile in one direction, walk across the approved pedestrian infrastructure, and walk half a mile in the other direction, just because that's what the road was telling me to do. I would run across the road. So people act rationally - and in that situation, it is rational to run across the road and just risk it, because I didn't have time to spend 30 extra minutes crossing a street that traffic engineers had decided was a highway through the middle of a neighborhood. And that causes really risky behavior. And the only solution, and the solution that obviously we haven't taken - because traffic fatalities are going up and not down everywhere - is to change our roads and to inconvenience drivers a little bit in order to save some lives. [00:29:32] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I do just want to underscore - between 10 and 15 years ago, the conversations about traffic calming in Seattle and hearing pushback, and - Oh my gosh, this is going to change my commute and things are going to take forever, there's a war on cars. And the impact to cars and drivers was really negligible - literally talking about differences of one and two minutes, which can have such a powerful impact on safety and truly save lives. We really do have to ask ourselves the question, Do we really believe cars should be able to just go as fast as possible and have absolute priority in anything that might slow them down? It's bad even if it costs lives and money and so much. Or can we spare a minute? Can we spare two minutes to spare some lives? It really does come down to that, and I wish we would more openly have that conversation - because there are so many people who are walking, and who are riding bikes, who are in proximity to that. And it has to be part of the solution to public safety, people being safe on the roads. I just wish we would be in a different place with that. I do want to definitely talk about some great coverage in PubliCola this week about the Low Income Housing Institute, also known as LIHI, being sued for unlawful eviction. What happened here? [00:31:11] Erica Barnett: This is one of a couple of lawsuits actually that have been filed against LIHI. One was dismissed at the court commissioner level, but this one was just filed this past week by a guy who lived in a tiny house village - actually in Olympia - run by LIHI. And he was kicked out after an altercation with one of the staff. And the lawsuit essentially is asserting that this was an eviction, that LIHI's tiny house villages are housing. This guy lived in the tiny house for more than two years when he was kicked out, and LIHI said - You have to be out within 48 hours, take all your stuff, goodbye. And he did vacate, but he's saying this was not legal, and it was an eviction, and the tiny house was his home. And I think as a matter of law, what is interesting - there's a couple of things that I think are interesting about this case - as a matter of law, LIHI has long been classified, or was long classified - their tiny house villages were classified as encampments. And they got an upgrade during the pandemic - the city, and then eventually the federal government, now considers them enhanced shelter. But what they're saying is that it's essentially transitional housing, and it meets these definitions of transitional housing that were adopted by the State Legislature just a couple years ago. So there's an interesting legal argument there about - once you have four walls, a door that locks - is that everybody who supports LIHI likes to say - is that housing? And does LIHI have more obligations to give notice and to give reasons and to allow people in some cases to rectify whatever is wrong? LIHI says that they are not transitional housing and that if you started defining their tiny houses that way, it would create a situation where every type of enhanced shelter would start looking at the people they take in differently because they wouldn't want to have to keep people around if they were causing a problem in the community. And if you had tenant rights, that would create a situation where people could live there for a long time while continuing to cause problems. So if it goes forward, that would be an interesting legal discussion. And separately, I think that there's been a lot of complaints from residents of the tiny house villages that the conditions there are not always the greatest. One thing that this gentleman who's suing brought up to me was that they have these kind of outdoor kitchens, that he said the nutrition is really bad, there have been times when the washing machines have been broken so they can't wash their clothes, where there's been no hot water for a month on end in this particular village. And so I think there's questions too about the quality of life at tiny house villages. And so those are not really being litigated, but they're being discussed and I think that that will continue to be the case. LIHI is under a microscope with funding from the new King County Regional Homelessness Authority, whose CEO Marc Dones has never been a big supporter of tiny house villages. So I think they are under fire right now, and their CEO Sharon Lee is definitely someone who fights back and you can read my coverage for her comments on that. [00:34:59] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is an interesting situation. I think it really brings up a lot of issues to a lot of folks that just because someone does not have shelter, if someone is responsible for providing them shelter or housing - and some of these people can be housed for months in tiny home villages - does that mean that they are not entitled to the same kinds of protections that everyone else is entitled to? And it seems like the argument against that is that - Well, this is a more challenging population and if we're going to serve them, providing those kinds of protections is dangerous for us as an organization and maybe we couldn't do it overall. When I think there are a lot of people who would love to talk about, Okay, what are ways that we can ensure that there isn't abuse or exploitation, more dangerous conditions? Just because someone does not have the means to pursue a lot of recourse or is coming from a bad environment, does that mean that we're fine with letting them settle for any old thing and any old treatment? And that is not to say that this is not a challenging and complex issue. Certainly this is a population that because they have been unhoused and out on the streets, they've been made more vulnerable to a host of challenges - whether it's health problems, safety issues, mental health issues, substance use disorder - the things that afflict society at large afflict this population also, and they're at risk for so many other things. And so I just hope we have a conversation that really does start from a place of how can we keep this population as safe as possible? And how do we keep people accountable to ensure that there aren't abuses? I feel like it's a risky place to be to say - If we aren't here, no one's going to be. And so take it or leave it with whatever there is, or not being introspective about how services can be provided in a better, safer, more equitable manner. I know that's what I thought when I first saw the coverage. What kind of reaction are you seeing from people? [00:37:20] Erica Barnett: It's interesting. I think there is a lot of opposition to LIHI right now that I'm seeing in places like Twitter. I did want to say - just to flip your comments a little bit - I've also heard lots of complaints over the years from people who live at encampments but also in tiny house villages, that the environment can also be made unpleasant and challenging by other residents. People talk about - because tiny house villages - many of them are low-barrier and they allow people to use drugs and alcohol. People talk about that creating a bad environment in some tiny house villages. And when you have a population that is largely actively using, it can be really challenging for people who aren't. I don't want to discount the fact that when you are completely low-barrier, that creates challenges in itself - if somebody's trying to stay sober and they're in that environment, for example. But there can be lots of challenges in these communities - they're communities of people who are all struggling with different things. I just wanted to signpost that a little bit. Like I said, I think there's pushback to LIHI right now. It receives a lot of contracts from KCRHA and people are starting to really put a spotlight on them more than on other organizations. My coverage has been pretty factual, I think, so I'm trying not to reflect a bias one way or the other. And people can read into it their own biases and opinions and are doing so. [00:39:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, definitely. And it'll be interesting to see - I think one of the issues is that this is one provider who is doing so much of this work, and almost has a monopoly on the ability to provide these services. And are there - I certainly don't want to suggest that there are not challenges and that residents may not be, safety issues and sometimes, and thank you for bringing that up. I do think that it would be interesting to see what other similar shelters are doing and if they're in line with this. I do not know if they are in line with what other shelters who provide similar services or other tiny home villages are providing, but I hope that that is being looked at. [00:40:02] Erica Barnett: I will just say - really briefly - compare it to another enhanced shelter, the Navigation Center. Navigation Center kicks people out all the time. We don't necessarily talk about that as much because it's not as high profile. People aren't - the Navigation Center doesn't have an Andrew Lewis on the City Council constantly singing its praises and inviting criticism, but shelters do kick people out. It happens a lot for behavioral issues, so people should not be under the impression that this is uncommon. [00:40:34] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And with that, we will thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 20th, 2023. Happy birthday, Terrance. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Seattle political reporter, editor of PubliCola, co-host of Seattle Nice Podcast, and the author of Quitter: A Memoir of Drinking, Relapse and Recovery, Erica Barnett. You can find Erica on Twitter @ericacbarnett and on PubliCola.com. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and find me on Twitter @finchfrii with two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. And if you like us, leave a review. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

On this Hacks & Wonks Week in Review, political consultant and show host Crystal Fincher is joined by fellow political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner, for an enthusiastic conversation looking ahead to the 2023 Washington state legislative session, reviewing key announcements from a party leader and a city councilmember who aren't running again, and discussing what makes for effective political mail.  Crystal and Heather start the show looking at what's coming in the 2023 state legislative session. They highlight housing, drug possession laws, childcare, and education as key areas that our representatives will be working on in Olympia, and point out the mandate voters gave our leaders by electing for fighting for progressive reforms last November.  This week, state Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski announced she will not be running for state chair again. Crystal and Heather review Podlodowski's accomplishments as chair and compare her tenure to other state parties like New York. In more local news, Seattle City Councilmember Alex Pedersen announced he will also not be running for re-election this year, meaning that now three city council seats will not have an incumbent in their race.  After a brief discussion about Seattle's I-135 Social Housing initiative, which will be decided on a February 14th ballot, Crystal and Heather have an in-depth conversation about what makes for effective political mail. It's an informative discussion from two highly-accomplished experts in the field that you won't want to miss!  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host Heather Weiner at @hlweiner.   Heather Weiner Heather Weiner (she/her) is a political consultant with 30 years of experience on labor, environmental, LGBTQ, racial justice, and reproductive rights issues. She focuses on ballot initiatives, independent expenditures, legislative, union organizing and contract campaigns. She's a recovering lawyer.   Resources   Hacks & Wonks twitter - 2022 Stats    “Inslee Rolls Out ‘Substantial and Audacious' Housing Agenda in Budget Proposal” by Ryan Packer from The Urbanist   “Voters sent clear message to WA leaders for 2023 Legislative session” by Andy Billig from The Seattle Times   “In 2023, WA lawmakers will decide the legal future of drug possession” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut    “Missing Middle Housing Reform Returns for 2023 Legislative Session” by Doug Trumm, Stephen Fesler, & Natalie Bicknell Argerious from The Urbanist   “What WA voters want to see from the 2023 legislative session” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   “WA Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski stepping down” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Alex Pedersen Not Seeking Second Term on Seattle Council” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “WA Supreme Court clears way for state to collect capital-gains tax” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times   House Our Neighbors website - I-135 Overview and Text   “Catch Up on Seattle's Social Housing Ballot Measure at Our January Meetup with Tiffani McCoy” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. If you missed our Tuesday midweek show, we had an enlightening discussion with Senator Manka Dhingra, Chair of the Senate Law & Justice Committee in our State Legislature and our State Senate, where we talked about the tough issues of her committee, the tough issues her committee will take on this legislative session. Find it in the resources below or on our website, officialhacksandwonks.com. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available on our website and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. [00:01:15] Heather Weiner: Good morning, afternoon, whatever day it is for your listeners - time of day - Crystal Fincher. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: Hey, hey, hey. [00:01:22] Heather Weiner: So happy to be invited back. I really thought for a moment there that I had just completely bungled it and would never be invited back. So can't tell you how excited I am to be here in 2023. [00:01:34] Crystal Fincher: Now hush about you bungling stuff. You remain one of the most admired and in-demand political consultants - and wonderful mentors and friends to so many of us. [00:01:49] Heather Weiner: Oh, I love this part of every podcast, whether it's this one or anybody else's, where people just give each other big air kisses. So big air kiss to you, Crystal Fincher. [00:01:58] Crystal Fincher: Big air kiss to you. I love it, and I love that - yeah, we get to talk to great, awesome, incredible dynamic people and learn from your wisdom. And just get a chance to say Hi, because we get so busy sometimes that it becomes hard. So I - we're listening to each other's voices. But while we record, I can see your face - this gives me an excuse to see your face. [00:02:27] Heather Weiner: Well, good morning. Listen, I am so excited about today's conversation because - as you know - it is not quite Christmas Eve for all of us hacks and wonks. But it's pretty exciting - I would say maybe more like right before 4th of July - because the fireworks are going to start exploding on Monday when leg session comes in - in Olympia - and we're already seeing pre-filed bills, people are already starting to stake out their positions. [00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: They are. [00:02:54] Heather Weiner: Yeah, it's going to be very interesting - with the Democrats coming in just fired up to get some stuff done. [00:03:01] Crystal Fincher: Love it. Legislative Session Eve basically. Before we even get to that, I did just want to take a moment. We, the team here - Bryce Cannatelli, Shannon Cheng, and I - looked back at our 2022. And usually we don't do this publicly, but we thought - we actually did a lot of work this past year and we just did a little 2022 In Review. We actually did 97 total episodes in 2022, which is a lot - 71 total guests, 25 interviews with elected officials, 4 candidate forums. We did a lot of work, a lot of shows. And the podcast overall - I was just saying yesterday - it, for being just this completely niche, really wonky local government politics and policy podcast, which - I was like, Okay, maybe seven people will listen to when we started out, but I just think it's really important to talk about these issues. It's become bigger than I ever thought it would. And I just really appreciate all of the listeners and people who engage. We are really passionate about just engaging in our community, including our local government. This is how we shape who we are and tomorrow - I've said before - getting involved in local government is organizing. [00:04:33] Heather Weiner: And it's, and it's fun. [00:04:35] Crystal Fincher: It really is. And you can make a difference, you can change things - you have so much impact locally. And so I hope, as we talk about this, people see that and feel that - and get activated and involved. But anyway, just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to everyone. We do this podcast in the middle of all of the rest of our work - this is a side project and not what we do actually full-time - we're political consultants. And squeezing this in between everything is a lot of work - it takes a lot of time - but we feel it's important, and we enjoy it, and we enjoy interacting and speaking with all of you. So thank you once again. And on to a legislative preview. What can we look forward to this legislative session, Heather? [00:05:33] Heather Weiner: First, let's just say that the Democrats are coming in and saying that they are being given a mandate by the voters. I don't know if you read Andy Billig's op-ed in The Seattle Times where he laid out, Hey, we won big this year and we have a mandate to address racial equity, to address homelessness, housing, tax fairness, the environment - and we're ready to do it. To which Danny Westneat, ever playing the devil's advocate and a grumpy old man like Walter Matthau, suddenly wants to say - No, you didn't really get a mandate. You just lucked out because of Dobbs and Roe V. Wade. I think Danny is reading the room wrong. I think Andy Billig totally has it. The voters want more progressive policies, they want to see Washington become a better state to live in, and they want the super rich to pay for it. And I'm very excited to see what this legislative session comes up with. Top of the agenda, of course, is from Governor Inslee's budget, which he announced right at the end of the month in December - where he dropped a bombshell saying he wants to run a statewide referendum that raises money for housing. And I think that's an amazing, fantastic idea - and we're hearing a lot of support from Republicans actually - even Braun is out there talking about middle-income housing, which is fantastic. We need to make sure that we don't lose sight of what the real - the other big crisis that is in front of us every day, which is the lack of low-income housing. I'm really hoping that the Legislature is going to take that by the horns and run it through this year. What else are you seeing, Crystal? [00:07:19] Crystal Fincher: I am definitely seeing that. I think, in housing, it is really interesting to see the increase in momentum, support - even just from last legislative session - for taking action on middle housing, or the ability to build in more places to increase the housing supply in the longterm. Also remains to be seen if there is enough momentum to, as you just mentioned, address lower-income folks and their ability to afford housing, keeping people in their homes, renter protections, those types of things. We will see how that lands in this Legislature. I think - seeing momentum on some public health issues - they're going to have to address the Blake fix, or the legislation that was brought about from the Blake decision from our State Supreme Court addressing personal possession of drugs and substances. And in addressing that, they're going to be forced to take that on this session. And we actually had a great conversation with Senator Manka Dhingra in our midweek episode about that. I think one thing that people are wondering about is just in the issue of education - we saw so many strikes by public educators really standing up for their kids and especially bringing attention to how short-staffed and underfunded our special education system and resources are - [00:08:56] Heather Weiner: And childcare. [00:08:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And although there was some improvement made on that in the short term - really what was made plain - is that there needs to be some statewide fixes. We have to more fundamentally address education. And I don't know if that's going to be addressed this session, but I think that's another area where voters spoke loudly and clearly - from people who were really articulating the importance of that as candidates and also that we just saw in the support of teachers. It's always interesting when those strikes happen and people are trying to figure out - okay, is there going to be pushback against the strikes? Is there going to be support? And in district after district - doesn't, didn't matter whether it was in a metropolitan area, suburban, rural - those teachers had the support of the families and the parents in their district and a recognition that we have to do better. So I do hope that we see action taken on that. And I think they can expect to face questions if that doesn't look like that happens. [00:10:05] Heather Weiner: So let me pivot on that one and say - earlier this year, we heard from a lot of school districts that said they might have to do more levies in order to fund their needs - whether that's basic construction, repairing these aging schools, funding special ed programs, funding general programs. And what happens is when they pass a levy, that's through a property tax and that property tax means that the lowest income people are the ones who end up paying the greatest percentage of that. So I am very excited to see in the Governor's budget that he is already taking into account the capital gains tax, which is going to the Washington Supreme Court for a hearing on the 26th of this month. He's already assumed that will be upheld as constitutional and has incorporated that money into education, particularly preschool help for low-income families and expanding childcare opportunities for all families. I'm very happy to see that - I think that's pretty exciting. But did you read this Elway poll that Crosscut did? Yeah - talking, asking voters what their highest priority issues were. I thought that was also super interesting because I find the Elway polls skew pretty conservative - and sometimes they're worded a little conservative for me, sometimes I don't really buy them - but I actually got polled on this, so I was very excited to see where I was. And more than a majority of the voters do support the Governor's proposal - raise a $4 million bond for homelessness and housing. They support more funding for education. They want the Democrats to move forward on these progressive policies. I think the Republicans are going to be smart this year. I don't think they're going to pick fights on the dumb issues for them - I don't think they're going to pick fights on choice, I don't think they're going to pick fights on LGBTQ issues. I think they're going to pick a fight on taxes and I think they're going to pick a fight on decriminalization. I think that's where they think they can start to wedge people and start to pull some of the moderate conservative Democrats with them. What do you think? [00:12:10] Crystal Fincher: You know, that's such an interesting issue. Speaking of public polling, every time this is polled - and it has been several times - the public is ahead of where our legislature is and the public is clear about - on issues of legalization, that they want a public health approach. We can look around and see that the War on Drugs has failed, right? We've been trying this for 40, 50 years and has not worked, even though that it's taken a ton of resources. And so they do want a different approach and to stop doing the things that haven't worked. And so it's really interesting because the public is there. And when it's put in front of the public, they vote in that direction. But some of our legislators are behind where the public is, and we hear concerns from them that frankly we don't see. Even in King County, when vote after vote, we see people and candidates who have articulated a more evidence-based approach to these things - that takes into account where criminalization is counterproductive, and doesn't make people safer, and doesn't get us closer to where we need to be as a society. [00:13:30] Heather Weiner: And is a waste of taxpayer dollars, honestly, right - incarceration. [00:13:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is really inefficient and expensive. And so that's going to be interesting - to see if people follow where evidence is and it's very clear, or if they don't - I don't know where the Legislature is going to land on that. [00:13:49] Heather Weiner: I feel like it has less to do with facts and it has more to do - I know this is going to shock you and all of your listeners - that politics and policy may not have anything to do with facts, and may have more to do with personal experience. And I think there are many legislators and many of us who have people in our lives who we love and care about who struggle with substance use disorder. And I think that those stories of people who we love and care about because - who are struggling with substance use disorder and face incarceration if they ask for help and so they refuse, they cannot ask for help because they are afraid of incarceration. I think that if some of those stories can come out, that if legislators have courage to share their personal stories with permission of the people involved, of course, I think that will be almost as persuasive - if not more persuasive - than the facts. Because it is the dehumanization of people who suffer from substance use disorder, which is a public health issue - it is a mental and public health issue - that people who suffer from that are demonized and dehumanized. And while we continue to allow that to happen, I don't think we're going to get very far. So let's use those personal stories. Let's have the courage to come out with our own personal stories about substance use disorder - for me, it's a lot of red wine - to get people to talk about it and take away the stigma and get some solutions on the table. [00:15:15] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. So it's going to be interesting to see. There certainly will be a lot that unfolds during the session and we will continue to pay attention to what happens, but certainly it's going to be, it's going to be an interesting session and I think beyond everything, you're absolutely right. There is a mandate to act and people are expecting action. Another piece of big news this week - seeing a series of big news where people announcing that they are not running for the seats that they hold. And I guess starting off is one that's not technically a public official, but is very visible in politics and policy in Washington - Tina Podlodowski, the State Chair of the Washington State Democrats, announced that she is stepping down from her position. What did you think about this? [00:16:07] Heather Weiner: Well, first - I am a big fan of Tina Podlodowski's. I think she has done an absolutely amazing job as Chair. She's raised more money. She has focused on Field instead of a lot of internal stuff. I think she's revolutionized, not revolutionized, but certainly taken the State Dems into a much better direction. And even just from going from caucus to primary system - all of it, I think, has been better for the State Dems in general. So I'm a big fan of Tina's. I think we need to remember what the State Chair does. So whoever is in that position is the face and voice for the State Party. They get to be the bad guy in a lot of ways. They get to be the attack dog, and that's the role that they have to play and sometimes it makes them unpopular. I think that they need to raise a lot of funds. They need to make a lot of friends and be close to the establishment - raising that money - while at the same time answering to the grassroots and more radical elements of the party who actually show up, knock doors, and do the hard work. It's a difficult position and I think whoever runs for it, and we'll know on January 28th who wins that position, has got to be prepared for walking that tightrope for the State Dems. I've seen that Shasti Conrad has already announced that she's running and has lined up a very impressive list of endorsers. So I know we both are Shasti fans and as the current Chair of the King County Democrats - or previous Chair of the King County Democrats - I think she's well positioned to take that role on. What do you think? [00:17:55] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, completely agree with you. And just - on Tina - that is a position that is really hard to get kudos for when you're doing things right. You're always making someone unhappy if you're doing things right. But what a contrast between the successes that we've had and built on in Washington state and the mess that we see in a state like New York. [00:18:18] Heather Weiner: Oh, right. [00:18:21] Crystal Fincher: That state party has just managed to really mess things up so severely that the entire country is paying for them - potentially just the composition of the House and the majority - looks like New York is responsible for messing that up. And just the calamity that is George Santos who - is that even his real name? Who has lied about everything under the sun? [00:18:53] Heather Weiner: Look - Tina is regarded by many of the state chairs around the country as one of the best in the country, because of what she's done with the State Party here. And I do want to say there's been a lot of criticism of her. I also am a woman who sometimes says things that piss people off. But I will say that, Look, if her name was Tim Podlodowski, she may have gotten a little bit less of the criticism for being the badass that she has been. Now, the next person who comes in is probably going to want to heal some of the intraparty wounds and build some bridges back. And I think that person has to be prepared to do some of that. But again, the State Party is often an unrecognized powerhouse behind many campaigns, Congressional campaigns, our recent campaign with Senator Murray. And the people who do that really hard work behind the scenes do deserve to be recognized - shout out to all of the State Dem staffers. [00:19:55] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We also saw news of Alex Pedersen on the Seattle City Council announcing that he will not be running again. [00:20:04] Heather Weiner: Number three - we have three open seats in Seattle. [00:20:08] Crystal Fincher: So what is this landscape? What does this mean for the City of Seattle? [00:20:13] Heather Weiner: First, let me just say - to everybody who's been asking, I am not working on any candidate campaigns in Seattle because - [00:20:18] Crystal Fincher: Ditto. [00:20:19] Heather Weiner: I can't do it anymore. It's just too emotional. It just wrecks me too much emotionally. It's just not good for my mental health, and my wife will kill me if I work on another candidate campaign in Seattle. So this is super interesting because I think that Bruce Harrell is actually still pretty popular in the City. I think that he - if nothing changes wildly between now and August, I think that his anointed candidates will definitely come through primaries, if not win. So I think whoever's running right now has to be ready to not attack Harrell and to be in a position to talk about how they're going to improve things or work with the current mayor. The current mayor is not - I do not get the sense that people are ready to hold this current mayor accountable for anything. They still like what he's doing. They think he's a nice guy. There's not been a major snowstorm or police shooting. So as far as the general public is concerned, Harrell's all right. And I think Inslee is actually giving Harrell and a lot of other city leaders a great out by running - going back to this bond initiative - by running this massive bond initiative referendum to fund housing and homelessness, because that is the major issue in major cities around the state. And in this way, the city leaders will be able to point to that, talk about how that's going to be the solution, and are able to walk away from it. [00:21:41] Crystal Fincher: I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. [00:21:43] Heather Weiner: Please - I love it when you disagree. [00:21:45] Crystal Fincher: I think that it's up in the air - and this is so interesting because this is like the conversations that we have amongst ourselves elsewhere - so I think the City is in a very interesting place. I think the City is progressive and frustrated at not feeling like issues are getting better, and not seeing issues get better that have been talked about as the most important issues - the crises that we're facing, yet still not seeing substantive or tangible improvement. And I think also - just looking at these last November elections - we see, especially in areas like North Seattle that have been traditionally thought of as more moderate - definitely look like they're different, like they're significantly more progressive than they were. And it makes sense when you think about the increase in renters, that the pressures on people of even generous incomes being able to afford the increasing and astronomical rent, just being able to enter the housing market in Seattle close to services and the City or being displaced further out from that. And so I think that you see the foundation of a more progressive shift, which we have seen a trend towards more progressive policy over the past several years overall. Now, this is an odd year. We're not going to see the same level of turnout, which is why we talk about even- versus odd-year elections this year - and that is a headwind. So it's going to be really interesting to see. And I actually think the individual candidates are going to make a difference. How can they articulate a vision of what they can get done positively that's not based on - to your point actually - what they dislike or grievances that they have, and more of a vision for what they can accomplish. How can they work together with people to do that? But I do think that people are more on guard than they used to be for - I'm the adult in the room, and I'm the conciliator and the person who can bring everyone together to find a place where everyone agrees and we can move forward, because - [00:24:07] Heather Weiner: I'd vote for you. I vote for you - that is the speech. You're probably right. And let's remember that in this year, the seats that will be open or up for re-election are going to be the district seats. So in this case, people who are currently going to stay in - like Tammy Morales, Dan, or Kshama - are going to have to show what they have done for the district. And people who are running for those open seats are going to have to be super hyper local focused on their district. What are they going to do for West Seattle? What are they going to do for North Seattle? And talk about that rather than the City around - and I think it's going to be a lot of geographic discussions, a lot of very specific - here's what we're doing for this park, here's what we're doing for this intersection - neighborhood community talk rather than the citywide referendum. [00:24:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, yeah, I completely agree with that. [00:25:01] Heather Weiner: Yay, you agree! I was really looking forward to a smackdown though. One day, Crystal will just - it won't just be this chorus, and one day we'll have a fight about something and it will be really, really cool. I'll find something we disagree on - it's gonna be like mayonnaise versus mustard or something. [00:25:18] Crystal Fincher: Oh my goodness, there will be something someday. [00:25:22] Heather Weiner: So I just want to point out one more time for your listeners that there's two really big things happening the week of January 24th. One is this Washington Supreme Court hearing on the capital gains tax, which has enormous implications - not just for $500 million of funding a year for childcare and education that comes from the super super super rich, but also for our tax structure overall in the state. And the second is - much more micro - is the election of the new Washington State Party Chair two days later. So that's going to be a really interesting week. I can't wait to see who you have on that week to discuss what's happening there. [00:26:04] Crystal Fincher: It'll be interesting to see. We also have a couple of things. We have a special election coming up in many jurisdictions in the state, including the City of Vancouver, Washington. But particularly in the City of Seattle - on February 14th, there will be a special election. If you know me, you know that I am not a fan of these February, April special election dates just because they are notoriously low turnout, but there is going to be a vote on social housing. Speaking of the motivation to address homelessness and housing affordability in this crisis, this is going to be on the ballot. We actually have a show coming up about this topic, but this will give Seattle the opportunity to establish a public developer - that establish publicly-owned, permanently affordable, cross-class communities with resident leadership - and basically establishing a type of social housing where it takes away the privatization, capitalist profit motive basically, of housing that we've seen where people are looking to create increased profits and income from raising rents. And really take away the ability to raise it and use resident funds to fund just the maintenance and upkeep without the pressure in - that happens in conjunction with the private sector - to continue to raise rents and hopefully create more sustainable, affordable, publicly-owned social housing that can start to address this housing affordability crisis and put in place a new and different model that isn't as reliant on federal funding, on federal income guidelines - and just give the City more flexibility to address its own issues. So this is going to be a really interesting thing that we have coming up. Ballots will be mailed on January 27, so that's coming sooner than we think. How do you see this playing out? [00:28:20] Heather Weiner: Who is going to come out and oppose this? That's really what I want to know. I haven't heard that much from opposition right now, and I think it's really just going to be about how it's framed for the voters. I'm thinking a lot about ranked choice voting and how that kind of was the sneaker issue that came in. And at the last moment, they sent out really good mail - shout out to Moxie Media for some really good mail on that campaign - and won, not by a landslide - but won on a confusing campaign. So I wonder if this is maybe the sneaker issue also - that there isn't really a well organized opposition and it gets through. [00:29:00] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I think how this is explained to the masses is going to be the thing. I actually completely agree - [00:29:08] Heather Weiner: Again! [00:29:09] Crystal Fincher: - just in the shout out with - on an issue that on its face is confusing to explain to voters - in what we just saw with ranked choice voting beating out approval voting. I think that was a great example of looking at - just when you have to communicate this simply to the masses - man, the ranked choice voting mail was excellent. The way that was communicated to all of the people - there are the people who pay attention, which is not a big percentage of people. We're abnormal. If you're listening to this show, you are abnormal. [00:29:41] Heather Weiner: You're just now noticing that we're abnormal. You want to know how abnormal I am? Every piece of political mail that comes into our household - my wife knows to set aside for me because I keep it in a folder. I just keep all of the mail. I hoard it because I love to go back through it later and see what people did, what they didn't do. Look at you - you do the same thing - you have - Oh my gosh, you have Teresa Mosqueda - look at you with all that mail. [00:30:08] Crystal Fincher: That is me pulling up my - [00:30:10] Heather Weiner: That is sexy. That is - I'm coming over for a date. I'm gonna bring a bottle of wine, some candles, and we're going to go through your mail, your political mail - [00:30:18] Crystal Fincher: We're going to go through mail. [00:30:19] Heather Weiner: I always vote late, just so I can get the mail and I can see how people are doing it. And I like to play the guessing game of which firm did this mail - because there are certain firms that shall go unnamed that just do the same boilerplate, same design over and over and over again - and I can spot them a mile away. And then there's some people who just look like they did it with a Word doc and just threw it together - maybe on purpose, maybe not. And then there's sometimes just really highly polished, really engaging, creative stuff. So I love to hoard the mail. I've got a whole box over here, Crystal - come over, honey, put on something comfy, and we'll go sit on the couch and go through it together. [00:30:59] Crystal Fincher: Oh, we're going to do that. I will bring my accordion file full of stuff. [00:31:07] Heather Weiner: I'm not going to cheat on you - not cheating on you, honey. I also want to say a shout - a big warning to some folks out there who have sent out recent mail - it's called householding. When you do not send five pieces of mail to the same household - it's annoying to the household and it looks like a waste of money. It looks like your consultant's not doing a good job, so - to certain people who have sent out mail recently and not householded, you need to have a conversation with your people. That is a waste of postage. It's a waste of - it's a waste of postage when it really comes down to it. [00:31:41] Crystal Fincher: It's a waste of postage, it's a waste of - yeah, it's a waste. [00:31:45] Heather Weiner: It's called householding. [00:31:46] Crystal Fincher: It is. And every year someone wins the - I-spelled-our-candidate's-name-wrong-on-the-mail lottery. [00:31:53] Heather Weiner: Can we do an episode where all we do is just go through and make fun of ourselves and other people who make huge mistakes on mail - including me, by the way. I mean, that word "public" - it's often, loses the L. [00:32:05] Crystal Fincher: Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Yeah, there are, there are a lot - yeah, you would be, you would be surprised. [00:32:14] Heather Weiner: Also, I recently saw a piece of mail where "county" lost the O. [00:32:19] Crystal Fincher: Oh no. [00:32:23] Heather Weiner: Yeah. [00:32:25] Crystal Fincher: There are all sorts of things that go wrong with mail and it still has - mail still has some utility. Obviously - [00:32:37] Heather Weiner: Oh - mail still has some utility? I think mail has increased in utility over - since COVID. Tell me, tell me why you think it still has utility and then I'll give you the counterpoint. [00:32:46] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely still has utility - one, especially during COVID when Field was impacted - that's a challenge. But it's so hard. Basically I think that you have to do everything, that you have to try and get to people in every way - I have to show you the commercials that we did. [00:33:05] Heather Weiner: Oh, I'd like to see them. Oh, I've seen a couple. I've seen a couple. They were really good. [00:33:09] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. But it's just hard, and I think lots of people who don't do this don't realize how hard it is just to get people's attention. The hardest thing to do - for a candidate or an issue - is not necessarily to beat your opponent. It's just to let people know that you exist. It's to break through all of the noise - because people are sick and tired of political stuff anyway. And there's so much happening, especially like last year when we had competitive Congressional races in many districts and legislative races, and there are so many political messages flying, there are five different mailers landing in mailboxes every day. Everything is a commercial in the middle of everything and just everything is that - it's hard to break through. And so really trying to stand out and in ways that are - that get you in front of the eyeballs of people - even if it's just the few seconds between when they pick up their mail and walk to the recycle bin, or they're half paying attention to a commercial. Hopefully people are making it to the doors also, but that's hard to do in a citywide election, in a City of Seattle. And maybe you can get to 50,000 people, but what are you going to do for the other 150,000-200,000? [00:34:31] Heather Weiner: Look, mail is not - if you're down by 10 points, mail is not going to win, is not going to win it for you. But if you're down by 1 or you need to - you are tied - mail can definitely make the difference. And let me tell you why. Let me tell you why, Crystal. Number one, it gets - you definitely are getting into the household, right? It's not like digital, it's not like TV - you know that that voter - it's getting into that voter's household. Number two, you can micro-target the messaging to that household, unlike other ways. You can do that with digital somewhat - but really with mail, you can do an excellent job. And the third is voters want to make the right decision. They want information and to have that written information in front of them - that's comprehensive, that's just not a pretty picture and a whole bunch of endorsement logos, but actually has some - what am I saying? - some crunchy information in it. Voters want that and will keep it. And particularly people say, Oh, younger voters, they don't check their mail. Younger voters find mail to be - I don't know - quaint and interesting, and like to get letters and like to get things that are personally addressed to them because it makes them feel like - 'cause they're real people. So I am - I actually think mail is more effective and more important than ever right now. And I am not solely - I will do mail for campaigns, but I am not pitching my firm as a mail campaign. I'm just saying in general, do not discount it. And do not get yourself all, get your panties all in a twist about TV and cable and everything all the time - broadcast TV, God forbid - spend that money on getting to the people who vote. [00:36:05] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. And also, especially in a vote-by-mail state - we're a 100% vote-by-mail state - mail is in the same medium as the ballot and the information that they're getting. Mail absolutely matters and it is one of - still - the most efficient methods to get to people that you can't talk to personally. [00:36:27] Heather Weiner: Well, I just would like to invite you to come over one night and take a look at my mail. [00:36:31] Crystal Fincher: Mail - it's a very vulnerable thing. It's a very sensitive thing. People are very sensitive about their mail. There is actually a reason why we have not done a mail breakdown on-air because people are very sensitive. [00:36:46] Heather Weiner: There are people who will never come on your show about their mail [00:36:49] Crystal Fincher: About their mail - and all of us are - it's not like every piece of mail I do is excellent, or dynamic, or on purpose. [00:36:56] Heather Weiner: We could do noteworthy mail - how about that? I would love to do one - it'd be hard to do on a podcast 'cause people can't see it, but I would love to do - it's like one of those cooking shows where you can't taste what the people are talking about - but I would love to do one going through, like over the years, some really noteworthy mail. And I've got a couple that are just - there's one, there was a piece where it had a black hole cut out in it, and it was talking about how something was a waste of money and it was a black hole - that was by a consultant from the East Coast. There's another consultant who did a piece of mail - attack mail in a leg race that was real - oh no, it was in a city council race - that was horrible and awful, and I think won that election for that candidate. So I would love to go through that sometime - that'd be really fun. And also it would be really interesting to a niche audience of approximately 12 people, Crystal, so maybe not. [00:37:51] Crystal Fincher: Oh, I mean - we would have 32 people who were riveted in that conversation. I don't want to rip people live on-air. [00:38:04] Heather Weiner: Let's just only talk about noteworthy things. [00:38:06] Crystal Fincher: Yes. And my biggest note - usually my biggest thing - is just trying to overcommunicate on mail. There - you can, if you try and say too much, you actually end up saying nothing. 'Cause people do need to be able to get what your - pick up what you're putting down at a glance. And then give them some hooks for a little bit more stuff. But you make that hard to do when you bury stuff in text. But anyway, we can talk about mail forever. But we will wrap up today's show. And thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, January 6th, 2023. [00:38:45] Heather Weiner: Oh my goodness. [00:38:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's January 6th - a happy Insurrection Anniversary and Speaker Groundhog Day on the federal level. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is political consultant and urban farmer, Heather Weiner. [00:39:03] Heather Weiner: Thanks for having me. [00:39:04] Crystal Fincher: You can find Heather on Twitter @hlweiner and that's H-L-W-E-I-N-E-R. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks and you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, that's two I's at the end. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. Please leave us a review if you like us. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.

On this week's Hacks & Wonks, Crystal is joined by Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Crystal and Doug quickly run through news items about progress on Washington state's capital gains tax, a discussion on the worsening traffic safety crisis, and labor stories about Amazon's questionable fulfillment of a court order and the federal government's blocking a railway workers strike ahead of the holidays. Public safety news out of Pierce County includes the start of embattled Sheriff Ed Troyer's criminal trial and troubling news about an officer charged in Manuel Ellis' death having been flagged for violent behavior during their academy training. Doug and Crystal then discuss the gulf between reality and rhetoric that has appeared in media reporting on crime and law enforcement and how it reaches into electeds' handling of issues like decriminalization of simple drug possession at the State Legislature, outcry over a miniscule portion of the Seattle Police Department budget not being funded in the City of Seattle budget process, and the campaign messaging of the King County Prosecuting Attorney's race. On a hopeful note, Leesa Manion's solid win in the King County Prosecutor's race and her strong performance - across the county, across cities, and across legislative districts - serves as a referendum for voters rejecting punitive measures and signifies an appetite for root cause-addressing, data-driven solutions that work. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Doug Trumm, on Twitter at @dmtrumm. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “WA Supreme Court clears way for state to collect capital-gains tax” by Claire Withycombe from The Seattle Times    "The Urbanist's Ryan Packer Discusses Worsening Traffic Safety Crisis on KUOW" by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Labor board blasts Amazon's "flagrant" attempt to flout court order“ by Emily Peck from Axios    “Biden signs rail agreement into law, thwarting strike“ by Shawna Chen from Axios   “Criminal trial begins in Sheriff Ed Troyer's false-reporting case” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   “Academy warned Tacoma of violent training episode by officer later charged in Manuel Ellis' death” Patrick Malone from The Seattle Times   “Washington should be a leader in ending the War on Drugs” by Mark Cooke from ACLU-WA   “Nelson, Pedersen, and Sawant Dissent Ahead of Final Vote on Seattle Budget” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “Public Safety Politics and the Even Election Reckoning” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher - I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's cohost: Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. Welcome! [00:00:52] Doug Trumm: Hey, thanks for having me. It's such a busy news week - it's really going to be a slog to get through it all. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah we will make an attempt. I guess, starting off with some statewide news that isn't ultimately the news that everyone is waiting for, but kind of a pit stop along the way - the Washington Supreme Court clears the way for the state to start collecting capital gains tax. So what happened here? [00:01:16] Doug Trumm: It's still just an early - not a ruling, but just a decision on the Court's part - not to issue an injunction. But hey, that's a really good sign because if the Court was leaning towards invalidating the capital gains tax, they probably would have issued an injunction. But at the same time, you don't want to read too much into these tea leaves, but certainly the fact they can start collecting the tax makes this start to feel pretty real. [00:01:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I would agree - don't know what's going to happen yet. I think lots of people are hoping that we do get a favorable ruling for the capital gains tax, but there still is the big issue of whether this counts as, officially, an income tax, which would make it unconstitutional under our Constitution. Many interpretations show that it is not, but we are waiting for the ruling to definitively decide that from the Supreme Court, which I think we're anticipating getting early next year. Is that the case? [00:02:14] Doug Trumm: Yeah, that sounds about right. And there's a lot of ways they could rule. But yeah, certainly one of - the hope, I think, is that they would create a new category of - income actually being income, which in our state - oddly, it's not. So that's what creates this huge hurdle to doing progressive taxation - is that it counts as property, and property you have to tax flat. And progressives - we're not trying to argue for a flat income tax. We want a graduated progressive income tax. So if they get a really favorable ruling, that will open the door to that and suddenly there'll be a lot more options on the table and hopefully Democrats actually take them. [00:02:53] Crystal Fincher: I definitely hope so. Also in the news, one of The Urbanists' own, Ryan Packer, was on KUOW discussing what is really - our own crisis here locally, and a nationwide crisis in traffic safety. What is happening here? [00:03:13] Doug Trumm: Yeah, Washington state really echoes the national trend. And the national trend does not mirror the international trend, which - most industrial nations are getting much safer. They've used the pandemic, sort of as a catalyst in a way, to encourage people to take transit, or walk, or bike or - hey, the roads aren't as busy, let's do this project now and make the streets safer. That's really not the approach we've seen in the United States and in Washington state. We've kind of spun our wheels and we've let projects kind of get behind schedule because of the pandemic. And that's happening globally too in some cases, but usually the vision's only getting sharper. So this is reflected in the data and the New York Times had a piece about this this week - Emily Badger - and the US is up 5% during the pandemic in traffic fatalities. But almost every other major nation, it's going down significantly - so it's a bad case of American exceptionalism. We were so excited for our transportation reporter, Ryan Packer, to be on KUOW to talk about this - their reporting is really raising this issue locally a lot. And they really, at all these meetings where some of these decisions quietly get made, whether that's a transportation safety advisory commission or some obscure regional body. But mostly, there's little efforts here and there to improve safety, but we're not seeing the wholesale re-envisioning of streets or strategy that has really been effective in other countries and bringing down collisions and deadly crashes. [00:05:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. And we continue to see this tension here, in the United States and locally, between designs that are car-centric being more dangerous for everyone else on the road. And investments in transportation, in pedestrian mobility, bike and transit access and mobility - and it seems like the more we design roads and transportation through ways principally for, primarily for cars and prioritizing their needs above everyone else's, that we come out with these outcomes that are just less safe and too often fatal for all of the other kinds of users. [00:05:50] Doug Trumm: Yeah, exactly. And the American system doesn't even treat pedestrian safety as a category of car safety when they give out their gold, whatever-rated car safety awards. If - you can have a three-ton car that maims pedestrians, but if the person inside is fine - oh, that's safety rated - great. So there's certainly federal stuff, but Ryan and The Urbanist, in general, we've really focused on - what are these projects at the City level? Unfortunately, the clear epicenter of this crisis in Seattle is Southeast Seattle District 2, Tammy Morales' district - and she's been a champion. She's recently told me - hey, I didn't think I was going to become the traffic safety person when I first ran for office, but given my district, this is - I really am. And she didn't say this, but implicit in this is our Transportation Chair hasn't really been focused on that - Alex Pedersen - and we'll probably get into that some more when we talk about the budget, because that's - the investments we're making aren't completely safety-focused, as you alluded to. And we have projects queued up to make it safer to bike and walk in D2, but there was just a wave of delays - projects pushed back one year, two years from the original timeline. There's supposed to be a safe bike route through Beacon Hill, there's supposed to be a safe protected bike lane on MLK Way - but those projects are behind schedule. As far as we know, they're still happening, but if you were - if this area is responsible for over half of the - D2 is responsible for over half of the traffic fatalities in the whole city - the last thing we'd want to be doing is delaying those projects in that district. [00:07:39] Crystal Fincher: Seems so - it doesn't seem to make much sense - same with just connecting sidewalks and neighborhoods that people have been waiting for decades to happen and still hasn't. So long way to go there. Also this week, we had a number of events, news happen in the labor realm - couple of items that affect us locally. One - so Amazon just had a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board directing them to correct some of their action, which they still seem to be just not doing. What's going on at Amazon? [00:08:19] Doug Trumm: Yeah, they think they're kind of above the law when it comes to this. They were supposed to read out this ruling saying - hey, you can't be fired for union organizing, or even having discussions with union organizers, or being union-curious. But instead of just following the order to the letter of the law and reading that out to all their employees, they chose specifically the shift change and then just played a video. So the Labor Board was pretty upset about that because this was a court order, they were supposed to follow it - but they weaseled their way out of it in a very corporate lawyer-y kind of fashion where theoretically just maybe - if you squint your eyes, does this qualify for following the order? I don't know. Alexa, read order. I don't know how you could get - this ruling actually to get to the people, but they're figuring out a way not to do it. [00:09:16] Crystal Fincher: One of the interesting things here - employers are responsible for letting their employees know what their rights are. Amazon has bent over backwards not to do that. This is another example of it. We also see Starbucks bending over backwards to be hostile to the union and we continue to see those actions, and then being called out by the National Labor Relations Board also. And this week, of course, we saw - yesterday - Congress take action to avert the railroad strike by passing legislation that still denies railroad workers any kind of paid sick leave, which just should be the most basic thing that every employee everywhere is entitled to. And just beyond disappointing to me personally - to a ton of people - that we had particularly a Democratic president and right now a Democratic Congress who acted against workers and against unions and their ability to take sick pay. It's just bad all the way around, and it feels like they were thrown under the bus because of the threat of bad things happening if they strike - instead of that being the key that says, wow, these really are essential employees. And hey, there have been billions in stock buybacks recently and hundreds of millions of compensation over the past few years for executives. Maybe they can also spare a sick day and to pressure the companies to provide that very, very, very basic thing for employees. Just very disappointing for me personally. How did you feel about that? [00:11:01] Doug Trumm: Yeah, that was disappointing and Amtrak Joe really let us down. I think it's odd that employees are held hostage to how valuable their work are, right? Their work is, right? Because everyone's - we can't have rails shutting down right in the middle of the holiday crisis when all these companies are trying to make a ton of money for themselves and have a strong Q4 and really try to get some blood flowing in this economy. But instead of going - oh yeah, so I guess we should pay those workers well to make sure that happens, and give them the sick time they're asking for and the benefits - it's just force it through because we create a vision of a crisis if they are actually allowed to use their union rights. So it just goes back to 1880s again of the rail barons and the laws that they got passed - that they're able to compel the workers in this way and have Congress step in. But it certainly is not - hopefully not the end of the story. Hopefully they can actually get real sick pay, especially in a time of a lot of viral spread - both in the COVID realm and really bad flu season. This is upending their lives when they get sick and it doesn't have to be this way. So it's disappointing, and I saw Mayor Harrell decided to pile on with that and say it was great that they'd broke the strike, and work in that he still supports workers' rights and everything - I think you can't have it both ways in this case. You can't One Seattle your way out of this one - you're either with the workers or you're not. [00:12:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, pretty cut and dry there. And what I just think is so shortsighted is that this policy is partially a response to being short-staffed. They are already facing staffing shortages. We are already at the breaking point where if - right now, under the current staffing levels, if an employee is sick, if someone does miss a day, that can create chaos in the system because there aren't enough people to cover. And this just perpetuating a system that is hostile to workers, where workers can face discipline for any unplanned absence - and people get sick and families get sick, as we all know - this is an inevitability. That if you're subject to discipline for that, they're seeing more people just leave, instead of have their career of however many years or decades end with them being disciplined for taking care of their sick kid. So we are already setting ourselves up for massive disruptions by making this worker shortage worse. We see things like this happening in education, in healthcare, in transportation - across the board - with public transit systems and others. So we just need to really take a look at what we're doing here and - are we setting ourselves up for the same problems that we swear we have to take action like this to avoid, when really we're just making it more of an inevitability that it does eventually happen. I hope we all learn from this and do better and hold our public officials accountable for doing better. Also in the news this week, speaking of holding public officials accountable, the criminal trial for Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer just started. This is the trial about him making a call, that was allegedly a false report, accusing a newspaper delivery person - a Black man who was delivering newspapers - of being suspicious, acting nefariously. He said that his life was threatened by the newspaper carrier, which does not - at least through all the reporting initially, did not seem to be supported by other accounts in what happened. He ended up being charged and now the trial has began. They sat the jury. Opening statements happened. Testimony has begun. What has happened in this trial that's been notable so far? [00:15:22] Doug Trumm: They use the same strategies they always use, it seems like - it's pretty clear that this police officer clearly didn't act as you'd want someone to act. Now he's trying to get out of it claiming - okay, I did feel threatened or I did. And it's how it plays out every time and a lot of people were willing to go along - suddenly this violence incident that this Sheriff deputy caused - suddenly it's not his fault because something else, and it just seemed like hopefully we're finally learning from that. But we've seen a lot of other cases where it's enough for some people to exonerate someone. I don't know - it's frustrating that this is how it always goes, but maybe eventually this line will go stale. [00:16:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, we will see. This is one where it's interesting because - for the day job and for this podcast, following the news is useful. But for my own personal sanity, this is a situation where often I find my inclination is to disconnect from - definitely the daily news, the drumbeat of news about this - just because some of the early signals, decisions, indications from this trial feel really familiar to me. Meaning that - man, we've seen so many of these trials end and the police officer, sheriff ends up being found not guilty, gets off regardless of what looks to be very obvious evidence to many people in the public. And I just - this will be very disappointing once again, if that does happen, but we will see what happens with this trial and continue to follow it for you all. Also, there was news that came out about an officer that wound up being charged in Manuel Ellis's death, having a very violent episode previously, and that not being heeded after that was communicated to the Tacoma Police Department. And so tragic. Can you detail what we found out here? [00:17:44] Doug Trumm: Yeah, I really encourage everyone to read about this story because it really makes you question how these systems are working and how this can happen. Because this officer - Rankine, I think is his name - was in the police academy. They identified that he had an issue with violence and with - I forget what they called it, "code black" or something like that - basically just shutting down and going tunnel vision, not hearing the outside world once he's in that mode. And it's related to his combat service as a veteran - obviously, that's a complicated issue - we're very, very glad that people serve, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to put them on the frontlines interacting with the public if they have these unaccounted-for issues that are identified by the police academy. The police academy trainer decided to write a note, his superiors after a couple of days forwarded it to the Tacoma Police Department who was sponsoring him to be in this police academy and said - hey, we're worried about this guy. He had this violent incident where he shot someone during a training simulation who was not someone - the training simulation was supposed to be how do you de-escalate the situation, how do you - and the person was not cooperating, to be clear - and it was a virtual simulation. But the trainer was - why did you do this? And he couldn't really explain it because he went blank or whatever, and thought he had done fine because, I guess in the military, that's what he was conditioned to do and had seen a lot of violent episodes - but hadn't really made the connection that now you're in a civilian setting and you're supposed to be de-escalating situations instead of fighting your way out of them. And what ended up happening, despite the police academy issuing this warning saying - hey, maybe don't take this guy actually - the Tacoma Police Department still took him, didn't really make any accommodations, or - it's not clear that they warned his - the rest of the people he'd be working with, basically just treated him like one of the guys. They did put him on desk duty initially, but I think that's just what rookies kind of do. Then they put him on patrol with another rookie and it was not even a couple months - it was less than a year - and he had already, this happened. It was clearly a tragic incident waiting to happen and it did happen. It leaves us with a lot of questions like - is the police academy - is a little note in your file enough, or should he fail out of the academy? That's one odd thing about this case - they didn't fail him. The other odd thing is that even with this big warning, this huge red flag, Tacoma PD didn't do anything and now they're stonewalling the reporters from The Seattle Times and all the other newspapers that are knocking on the door, and they're just kind of clammed up about it, but it's clear they messed up in a big, big way. [00:21:03] Crystal Fincher: It's just one of those things that makes you want to once again ask - what are we doing here? If there is behavior that is so violent that you feel that you need to warn someone else not to hire him, why are you passing him? To the question that you just asked, why does that person pass the academy in the first place? Why was that not heeded when they were hired? Okay, they were hired and brought onto the academy. Why was no corrective action taken, no additional guidance? And yes, this wound up very predictably. The warning was given because it could be foreseen that this would wind up in unjustified violence to a member of the public - which it did, resulting in that person's death. This is a person, right? And it's just - if we can't weed out someone who even before they get in the system are demonstrating unacceptable violence - violence that you have to tell someone to look out for - what is the point of anything? There is this characterization by people, who I believe are acting in bad faith largely - that any kind of talk of accountability is antithetical to safety, it makes us less safe, it's hostile to police officers, and is not worth pursuing. And if we do, we're making life harder for them. If they're saying this is what belongs in their ranks, if they're saying that this is acceptable for passing and getting in, and then hiring without anything - then this is unacceptable. They're saying - they've said that their own policies were violated - this is seemingly saying that the warning came from them not meeting their own standards. If they can't hold themselves to their own standards and weed people out who don't fit that, then someone else has to. And evidently those aren't really their standards if they can't adhere to them. So someone has to, otherwise we're just letting - in this situation - basically killing machines out onto the street. And we have to do better. And it just makes no sense that we are entertaining people who say that this is bad for police officers. Acting against policy should not be bad for them. If so, we should have discussions about the policy, but this doesn't make any sense. And if their job truly is to protect and serve, and someone is acting completely against that, then acting more in concert with that and making sure that happens should be a welcome development. And over and over again, the public continues to vote for real accountability and reject those kinds of disingenuous arguments that - hey, you got to "back the blue" or nothing else. People can be happy to have a police officer there, that they're happy to have a police officer when they call 911 and show up, and still believe that there should be guidelines for their conduct and behavior that guide them and that they should be held accountable to - just like everyone else with every other job in this society. It just is so infuriating that - hey, this is predictable, it's foreseeable. And just with a shrug. [00:24:50] Doug Trumm: Yeah, and it wasn't his first time - [00:24:52] Crystal Fincher: Right. [00:24:53] Doug Trumm: - using basically a chokehold-type thing. And he had another I-can't-breathe incident and they just were like - oh well, it happens. And if he says - oh this person was threatening or violent - they kind of just, even though after the whole George Floyd thing - there's one thing that I thought was kind of the lowest hanging fruit - okay, we probably shouldn't use chokeholds anymore or knee on people's back, but this is exactly what this guy was doing. And he suffered no consequence for it until he killed someone. [00:25:27] Crystal Fincher: Acting against policy. And as we have seen with so many of these incidences, that there have been several occasions where officers who wind up killing someone - use violence unjustifiably, use violence against policy in situations before the killing occurs - which there is no discipline for. It is time for them to be held accountable to the job that the public believes they were hired to do. Just like all of us. That's not hostile. That's just common sense. So we'll see how that continues. It is just another infuriating, devastating, tragic element of Manny Ellis's death that is just - it's tragic. [00:26:21] Doug Trumm: Hopefully we learn from it. And I think it relates to how we get so breathless and just completely operate on fear and desperation - we have to hire, we have to reach some sort of set number of cops and then we'll feel safe. But when you get that desperate and you just want to add ranks so you can put out your press release to claim victory on that - you're hiring the bottom of the barrel. If we were serious about safety, we wouldn't worry so much about that number as flunking people out of the academy who are killing machines. You have to put accountability ahead of "let's just hit a number," "here's the right response time," "here's the right number of officers" - those are important things, but you can't get so blinded to them that you're taking terrible cops. [00:27:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and that makes the community less safe. The academy warned that - Hey, putting this officer on the street may make the community less safe, this is acting against public safety, we don't want people to be victimized unjustly by violence - and that was the warning that came with this officer - and look. We'll continue to see how this happens. Also kind of teeing up this week were some articles just talking about the War on Drugs - how much of a failure it has been - which is very timely because in this upcoming legislative session, which we're starting to see a flurry of activity with. And our new legislators now down in Olympia - and getting set and oriented and all of that to start the session next month - is that the Blake decision, which a couple years ago the Supreme Court basically decriminalized or invalidated the law that criminalized simple possession of any substances. Our Legislature subsequently acted to bring a uniform policy across the state and kind of instituted a new method of criminalization - some of it was lighter criminal penalties, but still criminal penalties for substance use and possession - in the face of a ton of evidence and data that shows that - Hey, criminalization is actually not an effective intervention. We've seen the entire War on Drugs. We've seen what has happened there. If we actually treat this as a public health problem and not as a criminal justice problem, we are much better off. There was a survey of Washington state voters - a poll taken - and in that poll, 85% of likely voters - the poll was in June 2022 of this year - 85% of voters believe that drug use should be treated as a public health issue and not a criminal justice issue. And this really sets the tone and provides a mandate for our Legislature, which has to take up the Blake decision and the Blake legislation again this year - because there was a sunset provision in it that is now up this year - to actually make good on this policy. How did you read this? [00:29:45] Doug Trumm: It seems like the public's at a different place than some of the very serious, centrist, establishment Democratic leaders on this who are - the likes of Chris Gregoire, who are saying - Oh, we really need to get - go back to our old policy where - it was drug possession was fully criminalized and it was just one strike and they could, people could be locked up for simple possession. And I think they portray that it's really important to dealing with downtown disorder, or crime, or whatever. But that's not really where the people are at, and this three-strike provision probably does make it, if you're only listening to cops, annoying - 'cause they feel like these warnings are letting people off the hook. But with jails being pretty full right now, you start running into this problem of where are are we putting people? We've done this drug war thing a long time, it hasn't really worked, the people are ready for a public health approach instead of a punitive lock-them-up approach. We just saw that with the election of Leesa Manion for King County Prosecutor that - the people went with the person who was willing to do diversionary programs that try to get people help and not load them up with jail time and fees, but instead give them an opportunity to get back on their feet and better themselves and think about rehabilitation instead of just ruining someone's life. I think the people are ready to take a different approach - I don't know how far folks, both in terms of the State Legislature and the public, if they're - maybe not ready for a Portugal-style solution, but I really think they're ready to have that conversation rather than just go back to the old way of doing things. I think the - maybe one of the things will come up is fentanyl - it really is a scary drug in terms of what it can do to a person and how likely it is to overdose - I'm sure they'll try to use that and maybe fentanyl is treated a little bit differently than other drugs, but it seems like a lot of substances doesn't - I don't know why you immediately lock someone up for having possession of a set quantity. It's sort of like - we got to get this person help, but jail isn't help. [00:32:11] Crystal Fincher: And jail doesn't help, and it actually does more harm than good in this situation. It makes our streets less safe. People are less stable, more prone to commit crime, when they get out - and more prone to continue to use. We've seen all of this and again, this is just about possession. This doesn't impact any laws on selling, or distributing, or anything like that - those still remain and that's not part of this discussion. But it would be good for them to act in alignment with where the evidence and data show - we are made more safe, and people are made more healthy and less likely to use and abuse drugs and other harmful substances. So we will continue to follow this throughout the legislative session and see what happens. Also big news this week - the Seattle City Council passed their budget. What did we get? What are the highlights and lowlights of this budget? [00:33:19] Doug Trumm: Yeah, it was a marathon day to wrap up the amendments and do all the speeches on Monday and Tuesday - I guess the really marathon day was the Budget Committee last week. It always is a slog at the end and it's tough to know everything that's happening, but ultimately the budget is - there's a lot of different takes on it, there's a lot of perspectives. But ultimately what happened is largely - Mayor Harrell's budget is reflected in the Council's balancing package. They did make some significant changes, but nothing enormous. And the issue that they're dealing with is that there is a large budget shortfall. It started out at $141 million at the beginning. And then they got the news that the projections had gotten a lot worse late in the game - so that any hope of Council just adding a bunch of new investments in evaporated, once they got that forecast that Real Estate Excise Tax was going to be way down - that was the main thing that took a bite out of the budget. And we use that REET money to fund a lot of our infrastructure investments in this city. So from a transportation focus, I was pretty disappointed to not see more investments in street safety. They did make some. Councilmember Tammy Morales really fought for her district - as we mentioned earlier - epicenter of the safety crisis. So she got a proviso to make sure that they improve the bike lanes in Southeast Seattle to have harder infrastructure, so you can't just run over those flex posts and injure someone on the bike lane or the sidewalk. That's one positive add, but it was just a proviso, so hopefully SDOT does the right thing and implements it rather than kind of wiggling out of it. But by and large, transportation didn't get a ton of adds and Mayor Harrell's budget didn't make a ton of new initiatives or pushes there, so that's one thing that fell victim to that shortfall. But a lot of the action was around public safety and that's where we saw a lot of the grandiose takes on - especially on the centrist side of - Oh, this was a disaster. End of the day, the Council funded 99% of the mayor's SPD budget. They're making a really big deal about this 1% - and within that 1% that the Council did do cuts was the ShotSpotter gunfire detection surveillance system, which has a really - it has a track record - it's been implemented in a lot of cities and that track record is not very good. It doesn't really, there's no correlation to it decreasing crime, leads to a lot of false calls - those false calls can then cause over-policing of communities of colors where they're implemented. And it has in, in instances, led to violent altercations between cops who are like - Oh, the gunfire thing said there was a gunshot here. And sometimes it's slamming a car door, or firework, or something - could set something off - or backfiring car, I guess. So what are we doing here? This is not evidence-based practice - Council made the budget safer, but if you listen to Councilmember Sara Nelson or Councilmember Alex Pedersen, who voted against the budget, and then some of the press releases that were fired off shortly after - the Chamber actually sent the press release before the final vote, but right after the Council briefing. They said - this is, these are public safety cuts. And the other big thing that happened was - there's 80 positions that were unfilled of actually 240 total unfilled positions at SPD, because they're having a hard time recruiting faster than they're losing officers, which relates to a national trend of a lot of attrition and police officers and not as much new people entering the profession. But they eliminated 80 positions off the books - because when they leave those 240 empty positions, that means that those, that money goes into SPD's budget every cycle. And it throws out the balance of the whole thing because you're - basically all the extra money goes to SPD instead of just being in the General Fund for them to debate and figure out where to go. It can go back into public safety investments and that's what happened this time, even with the eliminating the budgets. But basically a lot of people tried to turn that into - they were cutting officers - but they fully funded the mayor's hiring plan, which - they're going to hire 125 officers, which they hope - that's then 30 new, net new officers. But that wasn't good enough for those two councilmembers and for the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. So they both kind of opposed this budget. And that seemed to be pretty upsetting to Budget Chair Teresa Mosqueda, because she had worked with both of those Councilmembers Nelson and Pedersen and had put their amendments into the budget - some of them. And she thought that spirit of compromise would lead them to vote for it, but they did not. And so it almost - this budget almost failed because it needed six votes. It only got six votes because of those two defections, plus Councilmember Sawant makes it her tradition and has always voted against the budget. And she's coming at it from the opposite direction of - Hey, let's invest more in social services, and let's tax the rich, and increase the JumpStart payroll tax - is her argument, the last few years. And she specifically said - I'm not chucked in with Pedersen and Nelson. So yeah, it ended up being kind of a mess messaging-wise, but largely this budget was reflecting Harrell's priorities, plus a few of the Council's. And it made the most of a really downward trend in revenue - and that was by virtue of JumpStart payroll tax kind of papering over some of the holes, and also then letting them make a record investment in housing. So housing definitely did well. There were some Green New Deal priorities. And it's a really big budget, so I'm kind of - broad strokes here - but if I'm missing anything, Crystal, let me know. But yeah, it felt bizarre to me that the the debate about it was so far from the reality. And I guess these few million dollars in the police budget are enough to cause these votes against, and the Chamber to be really upset, and saying this is public safety cuts. But it largely seemed like much more collaboration and kumbaya between the mayor and most of the council, with Budget Chair Mosqueda and Mayor Harrell complimenting each other about how well they work together. [00:40:35] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think what we're seeing is reflective of some of the reality versus rhetoric that we see on a national level, that we see with conservative Republicans, even the MAGA Republicans, where the rhetoric just doesn't match reality. But the rhetoric is a tactic to eventually shift people's perception of what reality is. It doesn't matter what happened if you just keep saying something else happened - Oh my gosh, this is, you know, horrible. We didn't get anything we're asking for. We need to move in this completely different direction - people start to absorb that and pick that up. As we saw this week with the New York Times - basically admitting without participating, pointing the finger at themselves - saying, Yeah, rhetoric about public safety was really disjointed from the actual facts. There are tons of stories, but when you look at the actual crime rates, they weren't actually high. Media did this. And they very conveniently left out that they were at the top of the list of media doing that. But it felt like that's similar to this conversation. This rhetoric is completely detached from what happened in the budget and from what's happening on the ground - yeah, majority of what Harrell asked for was in there. One notable exception was the ShotSpotter technology as you covered, which actually didn't have a big, a huge price tag compared to some other things. But it's still money that, especially in a shortfall, can be better spent to make people safe. And I think that's where a lot of people are at right now. It's just - lots of people are worried about safety, but where they continue to vote, and how people on the ground continue to vote in elections is - yes, we do want our communities to be safer, but we recognize that the public safety equation is bigger than just policing. We have to talk about interventions that are appropriate for the crises that we're facing. Just sweeping and moving around and criminalizing people who are unhoused is not making that problem any better, it's making it worse. So instead of investing money continually in sweeps and in criminalization and carceral solutions - Hey, what if we actually use that money to put people in houses - that actually is a solution to that problem. Other cities are doing that with success. We could be doing that. Hey, if people are having behavioral health crises, what if there was actually treatment available for them and a way for them to get the issues that they have addressed? Jail is not that. Arresting them is not that. And we still have, and prior to some of the heel digging-in that police unions have done over the past few years, there were tons of officers and unions who admitted that freely - hey, we go into a situation where someone's called us and someone is having mental health issue - jail isn't going to do anything for that. If anything, it may destabilize that situation more and put them further away from help and make that situation worse. We actually need interventions that are appropriate for the challenges that we're facing. We have to deal with extreme poverty. We have to deal with people who are in crisis. We really do not need to deal with it like New York is signaling they're going to deal with it - in mandatorily incarcerating people. We see that we have problems here in our state and a lawsuit that's currently being filed with people with behavioral health problems struggling in our current jail system and not getting their needs met, and their whole process is being delayed sometimes with no foreseeable end because we don't have enough resources in that direction. So people want that, but they don't want this continual one note - Hey, it's either police or it's nothing. And we'll see where it's going - as we hear a siren in the background here, appropriate - but yeah, it's just the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. The saddest thing is that the public sees it and our leaders are behind where the public is at - and they keep asking and they keep voting for something different. And we have leaders that are just stuck on the same thing, and I think that frustration and tension is growing. And it feels like they're ratcheting this up for the 2023 City elections coming, and they're going to try and make this a flashpoint for those conversations. But I think that's not a very wise strategy, because the public has not been going for it. We just had an election where it's pretty clear they did not go for that argument in many different ways at many different levels. This is not just a Seattle thing. This is a King County-wide thing, a State of Washington thing. And it's time that they take heed instead of pushing on, just kind of - despite all reason and evidence to do this. [00:46:15] Doug Trumm: Yeah. It's pretty clear they're telegraphing this is their signal when you have your press release fired up before the budget's even officially passed. And in the case of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, that these are public safety cuts. Nelson - and Pedersen is the one who's up for re-election - they really complimented the way he voted on that as far as voting down this budget over this tiny, tiny bit of disagreement over the police budget that they blew out of proportion. Apparently deleting these 80 out of 240 unfilled positions - you know, sending the wrong signal and is - people, the public trust has been damaged now. And it's just - get me to the fainting couch - they can add back these positions anytime. No other department in the whole city would ever have this many, anywhere near this - 240 empty positions - you just keep the money. And they get to - SPD gets to put it wherever they want in their department, basically, because of the way they don't eliminate those positions, and just Council and the mayor - tell them which parts they wanted - who would run an organization this way? If you don't have, if you're not paying for something - why are you still paying for it? It just, it - I dunno - it drives me nuts. It goes back to that sort of frenzy and the sort of fear mongering around crime - where if we don't just heap gobs of money at the police department - we're not talking about Defund, we're not talking about reducing the amount of - the headcount at SPD. We're just saying - how are you spending this money? Can we spend this money wiser? If we have less officers, we need to be spending the money wiser. We can't just have it be a slush fund, like we saw in - I think it was 2018 or 2019, right after they passed the budget - the average police compensation went up to like $157,000 per officer. This one officer made over $400,000 because they were just letting the overtime fly like hotcakes. And an officer working 80-hour weeks - is that making us safer? It doesn't really seem like the way to do it. You kind of put yourself in between a rock and a hard place because they also fight the alternatives - they say they're for a mental health professional showing up for those crisis calls, but then they block the program to actually set up an alternative emergency response. And that's what SPD has been up to the past few years. As Councilmember Lewis and Mosqueda and others have fought to set up - like Denver has - a alternative response, and they make up excuse after excuse. They say maybe the police actually have to be there. They dispute their own study that showed that most of these calls could be done without an armed officer there. But yeah, it just - there's nothing evidence-based or strategic about this kind of election-based fearmongering, just kind of opportunistic way of dealing with this problem. People wonder why this problem is festering - there has been a troubling trend over the last nine years - of corporate mayors that the Chamber and all these other centrist forces and Seattle Times have endorsed. They're not making the problem better, but they keep running on it like they are. So it really is - it's created a weird thing. And I wrote about how this sort of relates to us holding our mayoral and council elections in odd years when the electorate is smaller and they can kind of dominate the debate among this crowded, smaller electorate - tends to be more homeowners, tends to be wealthier and whiter than the population at-large. So it works in the odd year. But as we saw with voters passing even-year election reform - they're not asking for these elections to be in odd years, they'd rather them be in even years. And the County is going to make that move for Executive and Council races, and a few others like County Assessor - county-level races. But we actually need state permission to do that for the municipal level. So hopefully we get that because if we're going to solve this problem, it makes sense to have the broader segment of the electorate actually weigh in on that rather than purposely choosing a low turnout election to make all these decisions. So that's one thing I hope happens out of this, but don't hold your breath because I think they like it that way. [00:50:54] Crystal Fincher: They absolutely do seem to like it that way. And you did write a real good article breaking this phenomenon down. It's just frustrating to see voters - they are frustrated about public safety. They do know that we could be doing better, while seeing people continue to make decisions in the opposite direction. And when they are given a voice, it's definitive in one direction. And we just - the King County Prosecutor race that we just had was really a referendum on this entire argument. And mirrors what we saw in 2020, with the King County Charter Amendments. This is not just a Seattle thing. This is a countywide thing. One of the things I think people try and dismissively do i - oh, this is just, it's only a thing in super liberal Seattle, progressive Seattle, and no one else wants this. And we continue to have voters say - no, no, actually this is what we want - all over the county. And places where their electeds really are under the impression that - hey, the public, maybe they do just want more police officers, or I'm afraid to say anything different because they may not accept it. Public's already there, as we continue to see. And my goodness, in these Council elections coming up, there could not be a more clear mandate of movement in one direction in literally every district in the City. To enormous degrees - Leesa Manion's victory was large throughout the county. Yes, in Seattle - it was decisive and humongous. And in each of the council districts, it was - it was just really - it's just really something. I'm sitting here working in elections and you try and understand where voters are, understand where policy is - what's effective, where things need to move - and they're actually in alignment. And the barrier is - there seem to be some in media who are very stuck on not wanting this to happen, and a number of elected officials who believe them. And it's just continuing to be frustrating. But we see, in so many cities and so many districts - whether it's City Council districts, County Council districts, cities, precincts - across the board, they prefer a balanced, comprehensive approach to public safety and outright reject what we heard from Jim Ferrell - the more punitive - Hey, we need to crack down on things, make crime illegal again - understanding that punishment doesn't equal safety. And we would all rather be safe. We've tried punishment for decades and it has not resulted in a safer community for all of us. It has actually hurt it. And people want to be safe. They want to do the things that make us safe, and they understand - more than where a lot of leaders do - what the evidence says about that. So it's just really interesting. Was there anything noteworthy or unique that you saw in election results about that? [00:54:20] Doug Trumm: Yeah. I think it bears underscoring that the - very, very much the same coalition that was behind Republican now-City Attorney Ann Davison was the people behind Jim Ferrell, who was also a former Republican. Now, they both claim that they're Democrats now, but very much still act like Republicans. And there was a lot of Democrats - Sara Nelson endorsed Jim Ferrell and it didn't seem to help him very much in Seattle because, or her in Seattle - it helped her opponent, I guess, his opponent in Seattle. Leesa Manion cleaned up in Seattle - and that was part of her victory, but she won by 18 points. So it wasn't just Seattle, although Seattle was her strongest base of support. So it really seems like what an odd-year electorate does - electing a Republican in Ann Davison to be their City Attorney. And it's odd that we elect city attorneys - it doesn't really need to be that way. But they worked people up about crime and they did support Ann Davison, but in a much larger electorate just one year later they overwhelmingly supported Leesa Manion who's very much - let's stay the course, let's keep these diversionary programs. So whatever mandate Ann Davison thinks she had is absolutely gone. And all these people who are calculating - oh, maybe we can, maybe this whole region is just going to go tough on crime. It's just not happening. And the even-year election helps - we had reasonably good turnout. But the numbers are such that I wouldn't want to be Ann Davison going up for re-election, but hopefully we can get some of that turnout bump into the council elections because that's really what's at play here is - we've seen what an even-year electorate wants, and can we make that also what an odd-year electorate wants? But yeah, these crime narratives aren't connecting in the even year. Leesa Manion just did surprisingly well, considering - the way the race looked beforehand. One poll showed them tied right before the election, but clearly - A) their polls might've been a little bit overestimating support - and some of that goes into people didn't think that young people would turn out. And young people did turn out in relatively high numbers in this election. And hopefully that's a sign of things to come as well. It's just - that's what happens in odd years - why they're so much more conservative - is a lot of that younger vote kind of fades and a lot of communities of color and renters also fade. So you're left with the rest, which is the more conservative side of things. But it doesn't - people can - if we make clear what the stakes are, we hopefully can sustain some of that even-year turnout, but it also just - election year reform also would make this a lot simpler. So I can't underscore that enough. It drives - yeah, it's sort of odd that we are stuck in this predicament of - it's clear what people want, but because of odd years, we have to fight twice as hard. So yeah, I think these results really are - suggest potentially that 2021 - in Seattle's case - where we saw a lot of centrists come into power, might've been a bit of an outlier. It doesn't necessarily mean all these people are weak in their re-election hopes, but all the talks about Seattle's now drifting conservative - I don't see it. [00:58:02] Crystal Fincher: And there was a backlash and - I feel like I've been on a small island, with just a few others, who have said the entire time that that race was an outlier. One, Seattle is different than a lot of other areas. If there really was a wholesale pushback on that, we would have also seen that in suburbs, we would have seen that in different areas. We actually saw the opposite happen in suburbs, where they elected - a number of suburbs elected more progressive officials than they ever had before - who were speaking strongly about making the community more safe with comprehensive public safety policies and really rejecting the punitive policies. The race in Seattle was an odd race - you had an incumbent who lost in the primary, you had two really unknown people who both - didn't really consider themselves to be Democrats, so there were unalignments. You had massively different levels of spending and different levels of voter communication. And, from a political consulting point of view, you have to talk to all of the voters who are voting in the election. It's wonderful - and canvassing and doorbelling is great - but you just cannot canvass a city as big as the City of Seattle in one election cycle. And that's what we saw happen. There was a lot of canvassing, but a lot less direct voter communication. You may make it to 50,000 people with that canvassing, but you got to talk to the other 200,000 - and that happens with direct voter communications. And they were just massively, massively outspent. And the spending that did happen was really late for the progressive candidates, so if you aren't known, and if your opponent can define who you are - and spends half a million dollars doing so - that's going to carry the day and it did. But that is a unique kind of nuts-and-bolts-of-campaigns thing that was apparent to a lot of people before the election results. So that's not just hindsight is 20/20 things - those were, as that was shaping up - that was concerning to a lot of folks who were looking at and participating in those elections. And so we had before that, the 20 - well, we did see a direct public safety vote in the King County Charter Amendment votes, which wound up largely like these wound up. And just looking at these 2022 King County Prosecutor results - again, people try and characterize this as a Seattle thing - but Renton, Newcastle, Mercer Island, Sammamish, Issaquah, Bellevue, Bothell, Kenmore. Those cities are not what I think a lot of people would group into the Seattle progressive bucket, and were firmly in the side of Leesa Manion and rejecting punitive public safety policies. As we look at the Blake decision and people, looking at - well, people are scared, it's really worrisome to look at that. We're talking about - the 45th, the 48th, the 41st, the 11th, the 33rd LDs, right - these are not Seattle-based LDs. These are North and Eastside, Vashon Island, like these - everywhere around the county, voters are very decisively saying - we want to move in a direction that evidence points will make us more safe. And I just really hope that our elected officials stop listening to some of the detached rhetoric and start looking at the evidence and what their constituents are saying - because those who aren't are going to pay a price. And it's really important to take a look at what results actually are, and tether ourselves to reality here, and call out the reporting and the characterizations that are not tethered to reality. That's going to be an important thing. [01:02:33] Doug Trumm: Hey, there was this Seattle Times editorial this morning that was mad at Bruce Harrell for not being louder about the huge public safety cuts to his budget - the 1% that we mentioned earlier. Why isn't he getting in the arena? That's what Blethen and his buddies said, and it's - okay, that's crazy - first. But also, maybe this is saying that some of the politicians see the writing on the wall that - okay, this isn't like a home run issue for them like they maybe thought. They have to kind of actually try to moderate and have compromise and have a truly, comprehensive public safety plan instead of putting lip service to the alternatives and just being all police all the time. I don't know if that's what went into the thought of Harrell not getting into the arena, like the Seattle Times Editorial Board asked him to, but yeah - it certainly is unhinged. And it - Fox News always has a ton of crime coverage right before elections, and then it drops in half - there's been a study on this and after the midterm. So suddenly it's not prime all the time when you turn on Fox News - there's a reason for that. It's calculated, it's manipulation, it's election manipulation. And a lot of these other papers, including The Seattle Times, do that as well. I haven't seen the studies see that it's dropped in half, but that's part of the whole game and it's part of why the playing field isn't even. But I think, eventually, you have to have actual truth to what you're saying, or it starts just not connecting where we're at then. [01:04:17] Crystal Fincher: Well said. And with that, we thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, December 2nd, 2022. Hacks & Wonks is co-produced by Shannon Cheng and Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today was Executive Director of The Urbanist, Doug Trumm. You can find Doug on Twitter @dmtrumm - that's two Ms at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can find me @finchfrii. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you soon.

On this midweek show, Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales stops by to discuss Seattle's Comprehensive Plan with Crystal and how this roadmap, which determines the manner in which the City accommodates growth, plays a critical role in issues that affect our day-to-day lives. Councilmember Morales fills us in on how the Comp Plan and its impending update is an opportunity for us to create a vision for what our communities look like, whether it be addressing historic inequities, tackling climate change, or realizing sustainable, healthy, connected neighborhoods across the City. The show wraps up with details on how to get involved with the Comprehensive Plan update and guide what Seattle looks and feels like in the future. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Councilmember Morales at @CMTammyMorales.   Councilmember Tammy Morales Councilmember Tammy J. Morales was elected to the Seattle City Council in 2019. As an experienced community organizer and advocate, Morales worked for the Rainier Beach Action Coalition and served as a Seattle Human Rights Commissioner. Morales is trained as a community and regional planner, and has spent her career working with frontline communities on local issues including food security, displacement in low-income neighborhoods and community-centered development. Morales previously served as a Legislative Director for a state representative in Texas, as a city budget analyst in New York, and ran a successful consulting firm on food access research and programming, with clients such as the City of Seattle and King County. Morales has been a Seattle resident for nearly 20 years. She is a mom with three kids - two in the Seattle Public School system and one a proud Viking at Portland State.   Resources “Seattle Reveals Rezoning Concepts and Invites Scoping Comments for Big 2024 Update” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan | Office of Planning & Community Development   One Seattle Plan | Office of Planning & Community Development   Seattle Within Reach - Presented by Councilmember Tammy Morales - A town hall series about how we build a Seattle in which everyone has the ability to live, work and play - within reach   One Seattle Plan Community Meeting Series - In-person community meetings throughout Seattle   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, I am so thrilled to be welcoming back to the program, Seattle City Councilmember Tammy Morales. Welcome back. [00:00:47] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Hi, Crystal. I'm so happy to be here. [00:00:49] Crystal Fincher: So happy to have you here again, thankful for all of the hard work you've been doing, and how you've been pushing throughout the budget process in Seattle - very helpful, and I think especially those connected to community and community organizations - have been appreciating how you've been listening and trying to move in concert with community. And hopefully things turn out well on the backend. But today we're actually going to talk about the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, which is a whole undertaking. So I guess starting out, what is the Comprehensive Plan? What is this thing and why do we do it? [00:01:36] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Sure. So the plan is really a guide for us about how, as a city, we plan to accommodate growth - where that growth will go. It's really a vision and kind of a roadmap for where we plan to locate housing, where we think job centers should go, also how we invest in transportation, where we might put parks, utilities. It is technically a requirement from the State Legislature. In 1990, the Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act, and that does require the City to prepare a Comprehensive Plan really for how we will grow over the next 20 years. So we update this - every plan has to include what they call elements, which is basically different chapters that need to be included. So ours includes land use, housing, transportation, parks and open space, utilities - there's a couple others in there - capital facilities, port because we are on a port. And it really does regulate development so that we can curb sprawl. It was really intended to be a way to help protect environmentally sensitive areas surrounding urban areas - in our case, to make sure that we are protecting our farmland, our waterways in King County. So we are required to do this, and it is also a way for us, importantly, to be very intentional about how we plan to grow as a city. [00:03:27] Crystal Fincher: Very good points. And I want to just dive a little more into the issue of sprawl. It's a buzzword that I think a lot of people have heard, but maybe don't understand completely or why sprawl is such an issue. What is sprawl and why do we try to avoid it? [00:03:48] Councilmember Tammy Morales: So sprawl is really where we start to grow - we start to build housing, business parks, warehouse space, all kinds of ways that cities tend to grow - outside of what might be their seeming boundaries. And it is problematic for lots of different reasons. As I said, in our case, because we could potentially start to grow into our farmland and Washington is a very important agricultural producer and we do rely heavily on our own agricultural production just for our own consumption. It's also important because we are trying to address the very urgent crisis of climate change. And so it's important that as a city, we really try to grow in a way that allows us to have more compact neighborhoods, that really relies on public transit so that people can get around. And it's really also an attempt to try to reduce our carbon emissions as a city so that we can curb what is increasingly really problematic greenhouse gas emissions. [00:05:17] Crystal Fincher: Great point - all valid. And then, especially with sprawl - sprawl is expensive. I think we see a lot of this - it's a little more challenging in the City of Seattle, which is built out to a lot of its boundaries - and a lot of what we're talking about is how to redevelop stuff, but you can really see it in a number of our suburbs and rural areas. South King County used to actually be a very fertile agricultural area. Kent used to be known as the lettuce capital of the United States. [00:05:53] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Indeed. [00:05:54] Crystal Fincher: But - I'm here for your Kent history facts - but as the city grew and houses took over that, industrial lands took over that - warehouses, commercial space - and really paved over agricultural land, which I think some people might reconsider if they had to do it all over again today. Certainly not all of it, portions of it, would have been nicer to preserve - but wetlands, environmental areas, and just growth is expensive. This is city infrastructure that you have to build out, that has a cost, and then you have to maintain. And we talk about needing to handle our existing infrastructure and build more of - and complete the infrastructure, like sidewalks - [00:06:44] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Absolutely. [00:06:45] Crystal Fincher: - and bike paths to help everyone get along. And now we're building out further and basically expanding the map of what the City is responsible to do. And oftentimes that's not captured in the cost of development, and that's not captured in the existing tax scheme. So that just ends up adding additional costs, additional responsibilities to the City - which we want to avoid. So coming out of this Growth Management Act - basically mandate underneath it - it's a way to strategically manage growth - which happens. We can't stop it despite weird debate questions that I hear about like - Should we stop growth? That's not really an option. People move to the area. We can't stop them from moving to the area. Usually not a good sign when people don't want to move to the area. So good things are happening. Good things attract people. And that's what we've seen. Now, the City adopted the current 2035 plan as of 2016. So is this going to be redoing this plan? Is this revisiting this plan? What is happening with this? [00:07:51] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Yes. So we - as I said, the requirement is to do these for every 20 years. And so it is our time to update our plan. And this is a real opportunity for us, because one thing that we have seen as a city - that our Office of Planning and Community Development has made clear, that our City Planning Commission has made clear - is that the way we have used this Comprehensive Plan in the past has really contributed to some of the inequities that we see in the City. And this is an opportunity for us to update the growth strategy that we have had in the past. It's a chance for us to address the displacement that we have had in the City. And really create a vision for a sustainable city that supports healthy neighborhoods, that creates safe places for people - so it is an important opportunity for us. And we have begun those discussions, which I'm sure we'll talk a little bit later about how folks can get involved, but it's important for us to take a look at this periodically because as we've discovered now, the current Comprehensive Plan really created an equity gap in housing and jobs. And this is an opportunity for us to address that. [00:09:21] Crystal Fincher: How did it create that equity gap? What in it made that happen? [00:09:27] Councilmember Tammy Morales: As a city, I will say we have a history of planning without real consideration for communities of color and how they will be impacted. The Chinatown-International District was split when I-5 was put in. We have a history of redlining in the City that really kept Black families and Jewish families and others from purchasing homes in most of the City. Even the very founding of the City on unceded land - over time, all of these decisions compound the effect on communities and really have a negative impact on the ability of these families and their children to grow generational wealth. It affects the ability of these communities to stay intact and has contributed to displacement. So there's a lot of reasons why we need to take a look at this. So part of the reason for these problems is that we have a 25-year-old strategy that is really centered on this idea of urban villages and urban centers. Effectively, what that means is that multifamily apartment buildings - the ability for them to get built - has really been squeezed into corridors - major transit corridors, arterials, and these urban villages. So that's where we put all of our apartments, while most of the City is reserved for single-family homes. And this has really created a tale of two cities, if you will, where wealthy homeowners can live in mostly single-family neighborhoods, and lower-income or even middle-income people get pushed into these corridors where apartments are allowed. There's all kinds of reasons why that is problematic, not the least of which is that it creates environments where lots of housing and the people and children and elders living in that housing are on, in many cases, dangerous roads exposed to higher auto emissions. It just creates this cascade of problems for the people who are living in those areas. So there's, as I said, an opportunity for us to rethink that particular strategy and rethink how we can create a more equitable array of options for where people live and what they're able to afford. [00:12:21] Crystal Fincher: So what are the options, the alternatives being considered? [00:12:25] Councilmember Tammy Morales: We've got several. There are five different options that the Office of Planning and Community Development are looking at. All of them are intended in some ways to address this. I will say - I think part of the priority for this phase that we're in right now - we're in this kind of research phase called the Environmental Impact Statement that they are drafting, and that will be looking at five different options. The first is basically No Action, so just continue to follow the existing plan that we have - putting most of our housing in urban centers and urban villages. There's one that they're calling Focused. Each of them basically offers slightly broader perimeters around these urban centers where different types of housing can be built. And so that is the conversation that we will be having over the course of the next year is - what do these different alternatives mean? What's the difference between an urban village and an urban center? What does it mean to build along a corridor versus building more broadly throughout a neighborhood? Does my neighborhood have an industrial center? - because that's another piece of the decision making that happens here. And so throughout the next year, we will be talking about the different ways that we could be building. How broadly do we want to move into what is now - well, it used to be called single-family zoning - now everything is called Neighborhood Residential zoning. So how much do we want to change the kind of housing that's allowed in these different areas? And that will be the discussion. We know that we have grown so fast as a city, faster than I think anybody anticipated. And we didn't plan for that. We grew by almost 130,000 people between 2010 and 2020, but we only built 70,000 new homes in that same time period. So as an example - I know a lot of people think there's housing going up everywhere, we're building too much - but the reality is that we are short over 20,000 units of apartments that would be affordable for middle-income folks - and I think that's the key. The way we have grown, the housing that we've produced has not been housing that is affordable for working class families. And so that needs to be a really key part of the discussion, because one thing we know for sure is that Seattle can't keep looking the way it does right now if we're serious about addressing equity. [00:15:42] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. [00:15:44] Councilmember Tammy Morales: And so part of the discussion - we'll just have to ask ourselves what kind of changes need to be made so that everyone can find housing that they can afford in the City. [00:15:56] Crystal Fincher: So now we're in a place where we're reexamining this, there are some other options - does it pretty much look like no matter what happens that we're going to be expanding the areas that new housing can be built in? Does that look like a uniform feature of the options moving forward? [00:16:15] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Yes, absolutely. The real question and the conversation will have to be about how far we push. I think there is an interest in allowing more - not just more types of housing, allowing it in more places, more parts of the City - but also allowing a mix of uses. So one of the things that we've been talking about, I've been talking about a lot in my office, is the need to make sure that we have better access to essential services so that we have not just - I'm not interested in just building more units of housing. I think it's important for us to contemplate how we build healthy neighborhoods. And that means that we have small businesses allowed - we allow for more neighborhood commercial space so that everyone can have easy access to a corner store or a small grocery, to childcare, to healthcare, to your bank - credit union, to a neighborhood hardware store. These are the things that help people navigate through their neighborhoods, have access to the essential goods and services that they need - without having to get in a car. And that's how we have the kind of healthy, more vibrant neighborhoods that can also lead us to the climate goals that we have - by reducing our reliance on getting into a car to do everything. [00:17:58] Crystal Fincher: Which makes a lot of sense. And as we go through this plan, obviously considerations about how we do need to proceed while reaching our climate goals is very, very important. I'm also curious about - talking about building those communities, which those - evidence shows that those are healthier communities, safer communities when they are built like that all the way around. I'm also thinking about just the environmental injustices that have been created by the current way the community is designed and situated, where we have places in Seattle that have average lifespans six and seven years shorter than other areas in the same city - but because of proximity to pollution, because of all of the other factors just from an environmental external perspective that are weighing on these communities, whether it's proximity to pollutants or carcinogens or things that exacerbate asthma, whether it's being in close proximity to roadways and freeways, underneath flight paths - those things all take tolls on health. How, as you move forward in this Comprehensive Plan, are you also looking to make sure that we mitigate environmental harms that have been done and move to prevent future harm? [00:19:20] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Sure. You make a really good point, Crystal. And I have many of the neighborhoods in my district that do suffer from those health disparities. Georgetown and SoDo and Beacon Hill, the Chinatown-International District - all of these neighborhoods are literally under the highways or along the Duwamish, where air and water quality are affected. And look, the truth is we just can't keep building housing in unhealthy neighborhoods, and the idea that we should build apartments along busy arterials and make low-income people live there does not promote equity and it does not promote public health. So we really do need to be looking at how we reduce emissions, how we support climate resiliency. One of the things that we're working on right now in the budget process is creating Resilience Hubs, so creating the ability in some of our community centers for people to go and be safe during an extreme heat event or a smoke event. So we are planning for these kinds of climate disasters, and we can't at the same time acknowledge that we have to take those steps and still allow for our growth management strategies to include restricting people's ability to find housing only to arterials. So I think there will need to be some analysis of our internal consistency in some of our different city policies, but absolutely climate change is one of the elements for our Comprehensive Plan update and needs to be a part of what we think about. Another important piece of that is transportation. Something like 30% of our City households are not within a 10-minute access to transit. And I will say - in this particular case, it is not necessarily a racial equity issue because the truth is that it is often fairly exclusive neighborhoods that have less bus service. But for the purpose of meeting our carbon emission reduction goals, we absolutely need more bus service in those neighborhoods too. And we really just have to move from this idea of isolated urban villages to a city of neighborhoods that are well-connected, that are within a walkshed of high-capacity transit, frequent reliable buses. We need safer sidewalks. We need protected bike lanes. We really have to encourage people to get out of their cars. But the truth is that as long as they don't have a safe, easy alternative, people will keep driving. And so we need to make alternatives the easy choice. And I think that has to be part of our conversation over the next year - is how do we create a city that is more sustainable and that protects both the climate and our public health? [00:22:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that makes perfect sense. And to your point, this is the opportunity, I think, to really think about and imagine what your neighborhood could be, to really think about the potential that lays ahead and how to capture it. So many times we're forced to think about settling for so many things. Yes, we don't have current transit service that is sufficient - so if I am going to get to work, and pick the kids up from daycare, and make it to a sports practice, or something like that - I have to have my car right now. That's what the current conditions force. But if we are looking ahead to - okay, how can we design our city and how can we design a blueprint that we can build upon that enables these better things? - Why don't we implement that? Why don't we do that? And I think it's a really exciting thing. I'm also a former land use and planning board member, so this is exciting to me. I know a lot of people initially look at it and go - okay, this sounds so boring. [00:24:08] Councilmember Tammy Morales: No, I can totally geek out on this. [00:24:11] Crystal Fincher: Yes! But it does impact the way your community, the way your neighborhood looks today - from where and how you park or don't have to park, to what traffic looks like, to what school drop off and pick up, which if you have done that, it's usually a trial and a tribulation, to where your daycare is, to what your commute is - all of those things. If you have to fit in a doctor's appointment, do you have to drive 20 miles away or is it right in the neighborhood? Just all of those things are so key to quality of life, so key to being able to have time for yourself, for your family, for your own pursuits outside of just working and coming home, but even just how you work and then go home, or maybe you're working from home - is all impacted by this design. And so this is an exciting thing for people within the City to get engaged in. And there are a lot of mechanisms built in for engagement with people in the community. What are those? [00:25:24] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Sure. I'm going to give a shameless plug for a series of conversations that I've been having to try to help folks understand this. It's called Seattle Within Reach. We've had, I think, five conversations with folks about some of these different topics. It's not just me, it's people from around the country - actually around the world, a couple international folks too. So you can find links to those conversations on my Seattle City Council website. But we are also - the City is doing a series of community meetings that I do think it's really important for people to participate in. This will be a chance to learn more about the plan itself, to talk with City staff, and other folks from the community. There are several community meetings. The next one is going to be Thursday, December 1st at Langston Hughes at 6 o'clock. There's one at South Seattle College, December 8th. There's one December 12th - so there are several. They're all in the evening from 6-8 PM in different parts of the city. And we can provide a link on my website, or you can go to the City's Office of Planning and Community Development website and get more information there. But this is just the next set of community conversations. There is going to be a lot of community engagement for this process. Our Department of Neighborhoods is working closely with the Planning Department as well. We're working with interpreters, with community-based organizations, particularly those who work with immigrant populations to make sure that they get materials that are interpreted, that there are folks who speak different languages who can provide information. So I would say - please reach out to my office. If you don't live in the South End, reach out to your own councilmember to learn more about ways to get involved. But this is going to be a really important opportunity for neighbors to weigh in on what they want the city to look like, the kind of changes you want to see, and the things that you really think should be prioritized in how the City plans for the next 20 years. [00:27:53] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. So as you're looking through this process, is there anything in particular that you're looking to make sure happens, or any specific changes that you're really trying to implement in this process? [00:28:09] Councilmember Tammy Morales: As I said earlier, I am really interested in this idea of mixed communities. This is a chance to set a vision for healthy, resilient neighborhoods, to rethink how we grow so that our kids and our elders, and really just our neighbors, can enjoy their own neighborhood without having to drive. I think we have a chance to really increase the kind of housing that we have - this crazy real estate market has been driving a lot of the displacement, so we need to take land out of the speculative market and keep it in community land trusts, for example. We can also take City land off the market and lease it for social housing development, and this would really help keep housing permanently affordable. Because the idea there is that the construction of the housing would be on City-owned land, so it helps ensure permanent affordability. So there are a lot of really interesting ideas that we can start to talk about. We're already talking about some of them in this budget process. I'm not saying it's going to be easy to make some of these adjustments to how we think about growth and about the systems that we have in place now, but that's the point of the Comprehensive Plan - is to rethink the systems that we've been using - to see how we can use them better. And I think in our case, it really is about setting a 20-year plan for a more equitable, more sustainable city so that our kids can grow up in a healthy Seattle. [00:30:00] Crystal Fincher: Thank you so much for all the work that you have been doing, all the work that you will do on this. We will share in our show notes and on the website all of the opportunities to engage in this process. And please feel free to keep us updated as things proceed. [00:30:15] Councilmember Tammy Morales: Great. Thank you so much, Crystal. It was really nice to talk to you again. [00:30:18] Crystal Fincher: Thank you. Thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Post-Production Assistant is Bryce Cannatelli. You can find Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks, and you can follow me @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered right to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

With Election Day looming and ballots due in a few days, this week's show is a Ballot-In-Review! Crystal is joined by perennial favorite Mike McGinn along with the rest of the Hacks & Wonks team - Bryce Cannatelli and Shannon Cheng - to discuss the recent political climate, break down the context of down-ballot races and why your vote matters. Listen in as the crew opens their ballots and thinks their way through the important choices in front of them. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's ballot party attendees: Mike McGinn at @mayormcginn, Bryce Cannatelli at @inascenttweets, and Shannon Cheng at @drbestturtle. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Time Stamps Washington State Advisory Votes - 05:57 King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1 -  08:25 Federal Races - 16:54 Washington Congressional Races - 18:00 Secretary of State - 32:00 Washington State Legislature Races - 33:13 LD26 - 33:27 LD47 - 35:30 LD42 - 36:57 LD30 - 38:09 LD44 - 38:22 LD46 - 38:55 LD36 - 39:45 LD37 - 39:56 LD34 - 41:05 King County Prosecuting Attorney - 41:32 City of Seattle Municipal Court - 52:40  City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B - 1:01:48   Reminders Don't forget to vote! Visit votewa.gov for voting resources.   Institute for a Democratic Future 2023 applications are live! The initial deadline is November 2nd, and the final deadline is November 13th.   Learn more about how to get involved in Seattle's budget season at this link and about King County's budget timeline here.   Student debt relief sign-ups are live! Visit this link to enroll.   Resources  Washington State Advisory Votes:  “Tim Eyman's legacy of advisory votes on taxes hits WA ballots again” by David Kroman from The Seattle Times King County Charter Amendment 1 and Proposition 1: “King County considers moving most elections to even years” by Joseph O'Sullivan from Crosscut   King County Proposition No. 1 - Conservation Futures Levy Washington Congressional Races: “Congressional candidate Joe Kent wants to rewrite history of Jan. 6 attack” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times   Straight Talk bonus round: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Joe Kent from KGW News   “Rep. Schrier, challenger Matt Larkin clash in debate over who's extreme” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times Secretary of State: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julie Anderson, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Steve Hobbs, Candidate for Washington Secretary of State   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Addressing Democratic criticism of Julie Anderson   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Thoughts on Ranked Choice Voting   Hacks & Wonks - Secretary of State audiograms - Experience to manage the broad portfolio of the SoS office Washington State Legislature Races: LD26 - “New ad highlights Washington candidate's past behavior against staffers” by Shauna Sowersby from The News Tribune   Sign up to volunteer for Emily Randall's campaign here on her website.   LD47 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Claudia Kauffman, Candidate for 47th LD State Senator   “Boyce, Kauffman vie for WA senate in swing district with Kent, Auburn” by Daniel Beekman from The Seattle Times   LD42 - “Sefzik-Shewmake forum highlights abortion, health care” by Ralph Schwartz from Cascadia Daily News   LD44 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - April Berg, Candidate for 44th LD State Representative   LD46 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Darya Farivar, Candidate for 46th LD State Representative   LD36 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Jeff Manson, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Julia Reed, Candidate for 36th LD State Representative   LD37 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emijah Smith, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Chipalo Street, Candidate for 37th LD State Representative   South Seattle Emerald 37th LD Candidate Forum   LD34 - Hacks & Wonks Interview - Emily Alvarado, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Leah Griffin, Candidate for 34th LD State Representative   Hacks & Wonks Elections 2022 Resource Page King County Prosecuting Attorney: "PubliCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Leesa Manion" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "PubiCola Questions: King County Prosecuting Attorney Candidate Jim Ferrell" by Erica C. Barnett from PubliCola   "Leesa Manion, Jim Ferrell tied in the 2022 contest for King County Prosecuting Attorney" by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   "Leesa Manion Holds Razor-Thin Lead in King County Prosecutor Race, NPI Poll Finds" by Douglas Trumm from The Urbanist Washington Supreme Court: Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu   Hacks & Wonks Interview - Washington Supreme Court Justice G. Helen Whitener City of Seattle Municipal Court: Hacks & Wonks City of Seattle Municipal Court Judge Candidate Forum   "Defense Attorneys Say Harsh Sentencing Decision Reveals Judge's Bias" by Will Casey from The Stranger City of Seattle Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B: City of Seattle - Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B   Ranked Choice Voting vs. Approval Voting from FairVote   The Stranger - City of Seattle Propositions Nos. 1A and 1B   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I am Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant - a busy one - and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full text transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host - and we're adding a little twist. So first, we want to welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle, and Executive Director of America Walks, the popular Mike McGinn. Welcome back. [00:01:03] Mike McGinn: Not quite popular enough - Crystal - you have to acknowledge that, but I think we need to go to the other guests on the show today. [00:01:12] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, so we're coming with you with a full Hacks & Wonks crew today. We have the incredible Bryce Cannatelli, who coordinates everything with the show and holds it down. Pleased to have her with us today. Hey, Bryce. [00:01:29] Bryce Cannatelli: Hey, Crystal. [00:01:30] Crystal Fincher: And we have Dr. Shannon Cheng, who is here to enlighten us also with her wisdom and insight, along with Bryce. Hey, Shannon. [00:01:39] Shannon Cheng: Hey, Crystal - super excited to be here. [00:01:42] Crystal Fincher: You could probably hear the sarcasm in that - but this is going to be fun. We are having a Hacks & Wonks little ballot party - we thought it may be helpful - because we talk about several things on the ballot, we talk about several races. But a lot of times we open up the ballot and there are things on there that we haven't seen, haven't heard of, and are trying to figure out. So we thought we would all just open up the ballots, go through them together - some of us in this call are later-voting people because we like receiving all of the voter communication until the last minute, so we haven't turned them in - but we encourage everyone to turn in their ballots as soon as possible. As we go through this ballot, we will add timestamps and let you know when we discuss the different areas of the ballot. So if you have a particular question about a particular area, you can just go to that portion in the show and figure out that, because we actually have taken some time to discuss what is in this ballot and on this ballot. So good luck. Make sure you get your ballot in. If you can't find it, if something happens to it, if you have questions, votewa.gov, V-O-T-E-W-A.gov is a resource. Or hey, just @ the show @HacksWonks to reply to us and we will try and chase down any answers to questions that you have. So vote, make sure everyone you know votes. This is really important and a lot is at stake locally and nationally. And what we do locally is going to dictate what happens nationally. And with that, I will give a few reminders today. And yeah, number one is vote. Don't forget to vote. The election - Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th. You can go to votewa.gov, that's V-O-T-E-W-A.gov to get all of the information about voting. If something has gone haywire, if you can't find your ballot, if you're not sure what you need to do, if you need information about accessible voting, or if you need to figure out about how to register to vote - which you still can do in person if you haven't registered to vote or changed your address or anything like that - go to votewa.gov and you can get all that figured out. Also, the Institute for a Democratic Future is accepting applications for this coming year's new class. The deadline is November 13th and so make sure to get those in there. I've talked about this before on the show, the Institute for a Democratic Future is great for people who lean left and who want to learn about making a difference in their community, who want to learn about politics and policy, or potentially even having a career - it's responsible for my career in politics. So if you want to learn more about that, feel free to hit me up or visit the website, which we'll link in the show notes. Also, it is budget season around the state - and including in Seattle - and so we're going to include resources for the Seattle budget process as well as King County in our show notes, so stay tuned with that and make sure that you get involved in making your priorities and needs known to your elected officials who are allocating money for the next year or two there. Student debt relief - signing up is happening now. Don't forget to do that. Don't wait to do that. We'll put a link to that in the show notes. And Daylight Savings Time ends this Sunday at 2 a.m. We're falling an hour back. We're moving into darkness in dismay and it's a very sad time for some of us here at Hacks & Wonks who like the extra sunshine in the evening. So here we go into the dark months of winter. [00:05:31] Mike McGinn: But Hacks & Wonks will be on every week to bring some sunshine into your life. [00:05:37] Crystal Fincher: We will try. We will try. [00:05:40] Mike McGinn: Stay tuned in on a regular basis. Yeah. [00:05:43] Crystal Fincher: So let's open up our ballots, crew. Let's see what we have here and start to talk through - for those of you who still have to vote - some things that may be useful, helpful. So the first things we see on this ballot that we've opened up are Advisory Votes. Man, these Advisory Votes on every freaking ballot. We have two Advisory Votes here. How did we get into this Advisory Vote situation, Mike? What is this going on? [00:06:15] Mike McGinn: This was part of the Tim Eyman Full Employment Act where he was trying to find yet another ballot measure to put in front of the people. So what this one does - it is passed by the people - and basically they have the opportunity to have a second opinion on every tax that's passed by the Legislature. So that's why you always have all these Advisory Votes at the top. But everybody approves to-date, the public approves the votes that are passed by the Legislature. It's why we elect people, send them to the Legislature. It's really just turned into extra space on the ballot, which costs money and makes the ballot a little longer. And so we could all save a little space on the ballot if the Legislature changed this. In the meantime, don't upset that budget that your Legislature worked to craft - just vote to approve. [00:07:08] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with that. I cannot wait until we get to the time where we get the opportunity to repeal this. It makes our ballot longer. It confuses people. This is just anytime there is basically revenue passed, it has to appear as an Advisory Vote, which does not have any force of law. It doesn't actually do anything. It is basically a poll about something that has already happened. So yes, vote to approve. But also I would really like a movement to vote to eliminate these Advisory Votes. One thing it does is it makes the ballot longer, which is not pleasant for a lot of people. What do you think, Bryce? [00:07:49] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I wanted to hop in just to say that the choices are Repealed and Maintained. And so the suggestions to vote to approve them are to Maintain them as the maintain option. But yeah, no, I definitely agree. We've talked about it in past shows. We talk about it off the air. Getting people to vote down-ballot is always a challenge. And these Advisory Votes just get in the way of that. I think we'll have more to talk about when we get to the Proposition Nos. 1A and 1B question on the back of the ballot about what length might do to people answering those questions. [00:08:25] Crystal Fincher: All right. So we are here in King County. We all have King County ballots. The next thing I see on my ballot - I think you probably see the next thing on yours - as we travel down from the Advisory Votes, is actually King County, a County Charter Amendment. Charter Amendment No. 1 - even-numbered election years for certain county offices. Question: Shall the King County Charter be amended to move elections for the county offices of Executive, Assessor, Director of Elections, and Councilmembers from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years? Why is it important to move from odd-numbered to even-numbered years according to the advocates for this charter amendment, Mike? [00:09:10] Mike McGinn: The single most important thing you can do to improve voter turnout. When you look at election results in the state of Washington, Oregon, anywhere else around the country, so many more people turn out in an even year because you also have congressional elections or presidential elections. It's just a more momentous ballot than the odd year elections. And so if you think people should vote more, if you think democracy is a good thing, moving it to an even year is great. The county has the option to do that. Cities can't just do it on their own - they need a change in state law. Representative Mia Gregerson has been pushing for that and others have pushed for it. In addition to getting more people to vote, it also really improves the demographics of the ballot. We're getting more young people, more people of color, more immigrant refugees - who are here and can legally vote. We're just getting so many more people voting that we're getting a more representative ballot. So I've been a big proponent of this. You just get a different electorate. You get a better, more representative electorate. And if what you care about, and I do, is more affordable housing - if you get an older, more conservative electorate, they're going to oppose new housing and they're going to oppose new taxes for affordable housing. They're going to be more likely to say, keep the car lane and don't make it easier to walk or bike or use transit. So we need to get an electorate and get elections in even years where we have an electorate that more reflects where we need to go. And hearing from more people, if you believe in democracy, it's great. So big kudos to King County Council for - and Girmay Zahilay, in particular - for championing this. And hopefully we can move all the elections to even years. By the way, we'll save some money too. We'll have fewer elections that the elections offices have to step up for. [00:11:15] Crystal Fincher: I'd love to see it. What do you think about it, Dr. Cheng? [00:11:18] Shannon Cheng: I'm really excited. We talk a lot about - on this show - about how local elections really matter and that local government is really where you feel the actual changes and impacts in people's day-to-day lives. And so having some of more of our local elections in a year where more people are going to be paying attention to it, I think it will be super helpful. I know I talked to somebody recently who felt like they were in Washington state and so their vote didn't matter. And, we're going to get to these other races. And I was trying to tell them, no, we have things on our ballot that really do matter, like the King County Prosecutor and judges and all that. And I think just combining it in a way where people are going to be paying more attention to these things that really matter in their lives will be super helpful. [00:12:03] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well said - I agree. Next up on the ballot for King County is Proposition No. 1, the Conservation Futures Levy. So the King County Council passed Ordinance 19-458 concerning funding to protect open space lands in King County. The proposition would provide funding to pay, finance, or refinance acquisition and preservation of urban green spaces, natural areas, wildlife, and some salmon habitat, trails, river corridors, farmlands, and forests. And would reauthorize restoration of the county's Conservation Futures property tax to levy a rate that will be assessed for collection in 2023 and use the dollar amount from 2023 for the purpose of computing subsequent levy collections. So should this be approved or rejected? There are some really compelling statements about this, but this is really important for protecting open space lands in King County. There have been lots of conversations just about the preservation of land, the preservation of open and undeveloped land, and how important that is. These are conversations related to sprawl, related to just air quality, related to just people having the opportunity to recreate near where they live and not selling or developing all available land and the consequences that potentially come from that. So it is important, I think, widely acknowledged as important from people all across the aisle. It's important to maintain all of this. I see a statement submitted by Sally Jewell, who I believe is a former CEO of REI and served in a presidential administration, and De'Sean Quinn, who is a Tukwila City Council member, as well as Dow Constantine. And really, we have to take this action to protect climate change, to protect these last best places throughout King County. So far, this program has safeguarded over 100,000 acres of land, including Cougar Mountain, the Duwamish Waterway Park, and Sammamish River Trail. And they can accelerate that with this proposition. Statement in opposition to it really basically says that, hey, parks are having challenges being maintained, and we've already done enough. I don't know that there's a lot of people here in King County feeling that we've done enough to address climate change or that we've done enough to protect local land. Protecting farms and fresh water, and open space seems like a priority to so many people in this area - and what makes this area so desirable to the people living here and those who visit and eventually come here. What do you think about this, Mike? [00:15:08] Mike McGinn: It's a parks levy. I'm for parks levies, generally. I actually got to run one once, and it was just great. And there's so much more in it than you might think. And if we talk about community - that to me is ultimately what this is about. There's clearly the environmental protection, but that's the quality of life and the community gathering places as well. So yeah, and it's a renewal. It's an expansion and a renewal of an existing levy. And I think every time you get to go to a great county facility, you just have to remember that the money came from somewhere, and this is where it comes from. They really have to pass these levies to make it work, given the way finances work for county and municipal governments. [00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And so this will cost the average homeowner about $2 more per month. There is relief available to qualified low-income seniors and other households. And the funding recommendations are made by an independent advisory committee and subject to external audit. So it's not just, hey, willy-nilly stuff happening here. There is accountability and oversight - looks like it is endorsed by the Nature Conservancy, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust for Public Land, the Wilderness Society, Seattle Parks Foundation, REI, Dow Constantine and council members - just a lot of support there. I find those arguments to be particularly convincing. But this is an important one that's flown under the radar for a number of people, I think. I've gotten a lot of questions from people saying, whoa, what should I do with these county amendments and this proposition? And so just wanted to make sure that we went through that. Next on my ballot are the federal races, which have gotten a ton of coverage. I think if you listen to the show, odds are you probably know if you're going to be voting for Senator Patty Murray or her challenger, Tiffany Smiley, but that is at the top of the ballot right now. Do any of you have anything to chime in with about this race? [00:17:22] Mike McGinn: It's really fascinating to watch how this race is starting to become part of a national narrative about whether or not there's a red wave - going to hit the federal elections. And then there's some counterarguments. And we could pundit all afternoon on this one. And I'm sure a lot of you, if you're politically oriented, have really been watching the national news about what will happen in Congress. Will the Senate remain Democratic or will it turn Republican? Is the House going to flip? Most pundits say it will flip to Republican control, but there are still some folks out there holding hope that it might not. So I think the real message just is - if you cared about the national scene, you have an opportunity to play locally too. There's a Senate election in the state of Washington as well. [00:18:15] Crystal Fincher: All right. And next up on people's ballots - is going to vary based on where we live. It's going to be the congressional races. So I actually live in the Ninth Congressional District. We have a very competitive Eighth Congressional District race between Kim Schrier and Matt Larkin. Kim Schrier, the Democrat, Matt Larkin, the Republican. We have other races. Who's on your ballots? What congressional districts are you in? [00:18:43] Mike McGinn: I've got Seven, which is Pramila Jayapal and Cliff Moon. [00:18:46] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think all three of you are in Seven there. Those races are a bit less competitive. I think two of the most competitive races here are going to be Kim Schrier versus Matt Larkin. And then down in southwest Washington, actually - in the Third Congressional District - between Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and extremist Republican, MAGA Republican Joe Kent, who is just... It's hard to do justice to him by describing him because I've tried to do it and then I've been like, okay, I can't do this. Here, watch this clip of him and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in this sit-down with a reporter, just answering questions. And it is wild. He does not think January 6th happened in the way we all saw it happened with our eyes. He thinks that it was a CIA false flag operation. He doesn't think that police officers were killed as a result of that. He's deep into conspiracy theories, deep into the election denial of the 2020 election. Just deep into so many things - eager to cut social security, eager to cut so many things, eager to defund Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia, eager to do all sorts of things at the border. This is someone who eagerly and has multiple times appeared on Tucker Carlson. This is not Jaime Herrera Beutler. This is not the type of Republican that people are used to seeing in this district, or even as people think about Republicans in this country now - even the more extreme version that people are getting familiar with. This is the tip of the spear of the most extreme. He models himself after Marjorie Taylor Greene, says he looks up to her and wants to do that, does not want to work across the aisle, doesn't see a point to it. Rarely does media outside of the conservative bubble, does not want to debate Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. This is a race where a lot is at stake. Jim Brunner just wrote an article about it this morning in The Seattle Times. Actually, he shared it - I'm not sure if he wrote it. But this is an important one for people to get engaged in. We've talked about the importance of - even if you don't live in a district, hey, why don't you adopt a district, make some phone calls, do some phone banking, get down there and canvass - do what you can. Don't let this slip away without doing everything possible. The Third Congressional District is traditionally a Republican district, but it's traditionally a Republican district that has elected Republicans like Jaime Herrera Beutler, who were nowhere near as extreme as Joe Kent. This is a closer race than we've seen there in quite some time. If enough people get involved and if enough people get engaged, who knows what could happen? Democrats seem energized down there. This is one where - don't let it go by without everyone pitching in and doing what they can to engage in that race. Any thoughts that you have on that one? [00:22:10] Mike McGinn: This race, yeah, it does highlight just where the Republican Party has been going. I think you see some of this in the Murray-Smiley race as well. I've been really impressed by the campaigning of the Democrat in the race and the way in which she's approaching the race. This is a district that is - it's a swing district, but it's a lean-R swing district, if that makes sense. It has the Portland suburbs, but it also has more rural areas as well. Yeah, maybe this - if this were on the East Coast, people would be looking at this as a bellwether of which way the trend is going in national politics. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to tell a little bit from the East Coast about how this race might work out by the time they start announcing results from this coast. But really, I think the D in this race - she's run a really solid race, speaking directly to people's economic concerns as a small business owner as well. And there's this thing where reporters want to talk about partisanship or polarized politics or divisiveness. And yeah, I would say the electorate is polarized - there are a hell of a lot of folks nationwide who are going to pull the lever for candidates because they want to see Republicans have charge of the chamber, regardless of the shortcomings of the local candidate. It's a really fascinating phenomenon that's going on. But I'm going to make an argument that it's - the Democrats look a lot like candidates I've seen in the past running. And the Republicans don't, in my mind, in terms of the extremism that we start to see on whether or not the election was stolen. The number of election deniers that are out there for the last election - there's just no credible evidence that there was any voter fraud. It went in front of numerous, numerous courts. It went in front of judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats. There's just no evidence for this. And I don't know that the media knows how to handle this - that when you have one side that just denies reality and the other side is still operating mostly within the frame of U.S. politics, as I've seen it in the years I've been involved in U.S. politics, but they both-sides it so much. And I think this raises a great illustration of that. The Democrat is really a right down the middle-of-the-road type of politician, and the Republican here is espousing things that just aren't so, and it's one hell of a tight race down there, according to all the polls. And portraying this as Americans are divided or the politicians are polarizing doesn't capture what's going on. [00:25:19] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that is a good point. What do you think, Bryce? [00:25:23] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I just wanted to weave back in something that Shannon mentioned earlier, which is that there are still people who live here and who vote here, who think that they live in Washington - they live in Western Washington - they're pretty safe from things. And I think this race is an important reminder that there are people running with these extreme views. There are these people running here in the state with really far-right priorities and goals. And this is a federal race, so it's gotten a lot of media attention, but it just highlights how important it is to pay attention to local races as well - races that for the State House and for State Senate and other positions - and just pay attention to what people are running on and making sure when we see people coming with extreme and dangerous views, that that's called out, that we let people know. Election Day is still in a few days. There's still opportunities to inform voters in this district about the candidates. There are still opportunities for voters who are really worried about rhetoric like this and candidates like this to get out there and talk to voters and inform them about this race. [00:26:32] Crystal Fincher: This conversation reminds me of one other thing, and actually was having a conversation about this as we were punditing on Kiro the other day. And there are some Republicans who are going - well, they're calling everybody extreme. Yeah, they're calling Joe Kent extreme, but they're also calling Tiffany Smiley extreme. And they're not the same extreme, but they're painting them with the same brush - you're hearing that for everybody, all the Republicans. If you say it about everybody, it's meaningless. And the challenge is, and the thing that the Republican Party has set up, is that they do have these extremists who are out further than a lot of the other Republicans that are elected, at least outwardly, right? And saying things that have been openly covered as white nationalism, Christian nationalism, that have been anti-Semitic, that have been racist, that have been homophobic, anti-trans, anti-gay - just very openly blatant right? And that is absolutely extreme. And no, not every Republican is outwardly openly saying that. They leave that to the Joe Kents and the Marjorie Taylor Greenes. But what is striking to me is how they have not been reined in by the people who have previously been considered as moderate and have previously been considered as the adults in the room. Those adults in the room are doing nothing to contain that extremist element in the party, and in fact, have given them more power, more visibility. The Republican Party, all of their caucuses have pumped money into these campaigns. Their allied PACs and supporters have pumped money into these campaigns and have been apologists for them. So if you will not rebuke when you hear those things said, if you will not stand up and say, you know what, I'm standing for these principles, and that person is not doing that, and we're both carrying the same label - I don't want to carry the same label as a person who is saying that - that is not what I stand for. We're not standing shoulder to shoulder. We're hearing none of that. We're hearing silence. And there are some people who want to interpret that silence as, well, clearly they don't agree. And when I talk to them, they sound perfectly reasonable, and they've been moderate in the past. We're hearing some of the most troubling things that we have in a while. Just the open anti-Semitism, the open racism, the open homophobia and transphobia that we're seeing is alarming. They're passing laws against it. This is not theoretical language. And we're seeing political violence as a direct result. That, of course, was predicted, right? When we hear speech like that, it incites violence. We have talked about it inciting violence, and it incited violence in multiple places, in multiple ways. And we've seen that just in the past couple of weeks - from January 6th to Nancy Pelosi to the Michigan governor - we're seeing this all over the place, right? And so silence is enabling violence. Silence is not moderation. It's enabling this extremism and violence. So yes, when you hear them all being painted with the same broad brush, it's because they're doing nothing to stop this rapid descent into this cesspool that we're on the precipice of, and that some states have already fallen to, right? It's important to vocally stand up against this, against hate, whenever we see it. And that's not a partisan statement. And if a party is trying to say that when you say that you need to call out violence, that you need to call out political violence, that you need to stand up and talk against anti-Semitism and call it what it is, and somehow they're putting a partisan label on that, be very wary of a party that says that speaking against those things is speaking against their party. They're telling you what the party is about if those things they're labeling as a partisan attack. I think that's very important to be said. This is so far beyond a Democratic and Republican issue, and we have to be aware that these Republicans are caucusing together, right? They're voting together for a national agenda, and we've heard this national agenda articulated. We've heard the things that they're queuing up. We've seen the types of policies that they're passing in places like Florida and Texas. We have the preview of what's coming there, and it is ugly, right? And ugly to people who used to consider themselves Republican. So to me, this is beyond the conversation of just Democrat and Republican. This is a conversation that we have to have before we even get to issues, because if we're leading with that hateful rhetoric and we're leading with that extremism, it really doesn't matter what someone is saying about issues, because the things that they are saying about people in their community is already excluding people and already doing that. I think that's extremely important to say, that we can't say that enough, and that trying to dismiss this extremism, and dismiss criticisms of it, and dismiss the refusal to call it out for what it is - is extremism itself. All right. So next on our ballot, we have the state races, starting with Secretary of State, which is a lively race. Now, we have talked a bunch about the Secretary of State race, and have also been posting a lot about it on the Hacks & Wonks Twitter account this week. So for that, between Democrat Steve Hobbs and Non-partisan Julie Anderson, we're going to refer you to those other shows. We'll put links in the show notes. We'll put links to the little audiograms and snippets that we have of the candidates' takes on different things. Steve Hobbs was a longtime Democratic senator known as a moderate for quite some time - and Julie Anderson actually just released a new ad that talks about that and him as a moderate. And then Julie Anderson has been the Pierce County auditor in Pierce County for 12 years, I believe now, and has built relationships around that area. So that's an interesting race to follow. We'll put those links in there, but that's the next one on the ballot. And then we get into the legislative races, which are going to be different depending on which legislative district that you're in. I just wanted to mention a few of the battleground districts here in the state. So one of them is in the 26th Legislative District Senate race - very important - between Emily Randall, Senator Emily Randall, and current Representative Jesse Young, who's running for that Senate seat. Emily's a Democrat with a strong record and has been representing that community and been in the community for quite some time. Jesse Young is one of the more extreme Republicans in our legislature, has - in the mold of the Matt Sheas, who made a lot of news for his activity in domestic terrorism. And if you think that sounds like a euphemism or like a stretch of the truth, I mean literal domestic terrorism like running a camp training people for war and putting tracking devices on law enforcement vehicles, and making threats to political opponents - extremism - and advancing bills to outlaw abortion in Washington state under threat of putting doctors in prison - that kind of extremism. And Jesse Young, as we talked about last week with Pierce County Council Chair Derek Young, has actually been suspended from working with legislative staff because of his past behavior and harassment or abuse. He is no longer permitted to have legislative staff, which is certainly hobbling in one's ability to get their job done. They lean very heavily on those staff. And so not being allowed to have one and having to do or not get done all of the administrative work, preparation work, ability to meet with constituents, ability to review and prepare legislation and represent the community is absolutely hobbled by that. But that is actually a really close race. Another one where it makes sense if you can adopt a race, that 26th Legislative District is a really important one where people can get involved with and make their voices heard. Also, the 47th Legislative District is a hotbed of activity - a competitive Senate race there - open seat left by the exiting Senator Mona Das and is being competed for by former State Senator, Democrat Claudia Kauffman and Republican Bill Boyce. This has been a purple district, a swing district, has elected both Democrats and Republicans. This district has a history of extremely close races. And so we have a race here where we're seeing some of the dynamics that we see in Democrat versus Republican races. Choice is a huge issue here. Bill Boyce - being bankrolled by far-right Republicans - has been giving really mushy responses about what he thinks about a woman's right to choose. And so that is certainly on the ballot, as well as just the history of corporate giveaways, tax - as was quoted in the paper - tax breaks and sweetheart deals given to rich developers and donors. And so certainly looking at the donor rolls there, you get a different story of who those legislators would be based on the activity there. So another very important partisan race. 42nd Legislative District, a very competitive race between Sharon Shewmake and Simon Sefzik - another Democrat versus Republican race - very important here for the Senate and just a variety of things. And again, we're seeing just greater space between the two parties. Here in the state, we, I think, have seen Republicans who have considered themselves moderate and who have been less eager to engage in some of the social wedge issue rhetoric that sometimes we see on a national basis. There have been Republicans who wore it as a badge of honor previously to say, no, that's not me. I'm focused on these other issues, but stand up. And whether it's being pro-choice, whether it is standing up for marriage equality. There have been some before here who have done that, some who haven't, but some who have. We are not seeing that now. Things are following the direction of some of the national races. And so we have that there. 30th Legislative District with Claire Wilson and Linda Kochmar, as well as the race between Jamila Taylor and Casey Jones are close - and so engaging in those is important. And then the 44th Legislative District with John Lovick, the Democrat who was previously a representative, currently a representative, now running to be a Senator, against Republican Jeb Brewer. Republican Mark Hamsworth for the House seat versus Brandy Donaghy, who was appointed to that seat and is running to fill the term, this new term. And then April Berg versus her Republican opponent. So pay attention to those races. Please make sure that you're engaging in these battlegrounds. And then we also have just Seattle races and - that we've covered. So in the 46th Legislative District, we have a classic Seattle moderate versus progressive race. Even though those, when you get into it, the labels might be a little bit simplistic, but certainly someone who seems more resistant to taxation, more resistant to change in Lelach Rave versus Darya Faravar, who wants to take more of an active approach in addressing issues like homelessness, housing affordability, and public safety - and move more in the direction of things that we've seen with the history of working versus those that have not. So that's a choice that we have there. We also have previously interviewed Darya, and so we'll link that in the show notes for your information. The 36th Legislative District features a race between Democrats Julia Reed and Jeff Manson. We've also interviewed both in that race. And we'll link that in the show notes. The 37th Legislative District is one where we did a primary candidate forum, have interviewed both of those candidates there - Democrat Chipalo Street and Democrat Emijah Smith. And we also did a debate in partnership with the South Seattle Emerald and others - hosted by the South Seattle Emerald - an in-person debate, actually. And we will link those there. I think that there are some interesting issues in that race, notable differences. We will also share kind of the lightning round stuff. But also, hey let's make sure that we're recognizing the full humanity of people and that we are not treating people who are in the LGBTQ community any differently than others. And that is an issue of difference in that race. So I encourage you all to do your homework about that and make sure that any candidate that you're voting for fully stands up for the rights of all people in our community. And that you communicate with the candidates about that and make sure all of your candidates know how important that is to you. And then we have the 34th Legislative District with Democrats Leah Griffin and Emily Alvarado. We've interviewed both of them. We'll link both of those shows in the show notes. So there are contested races throughout Seattle. Encourage you to vote in those races and make your choice. If you need help, refer to our show notes or to officialhacksandwonks.com. We have an Election 2022 page there and we'll put all of the resources on there. Next, we go to the County Prosecuting Attorney's race here in King County, that is between Jim Ferrell, who is the mayor of Federal Way, and Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Jim Ferrell has been endorsed by folks like the King County Republican Party, some mayors, King County Council member Pete von Reichbauer, like the Covington and Algona mayor. Leesa Manion has been endorsed by the King County Democratic party, former governor Gary Locke, local labor unions. So there's a little bit of a difference in the profile of their supporters that kind of indicates the approach that they're looking to take. One, being more in line with some of the data that we're seeing in the most effective approaches to addressing crime and accountability - that has yielded some results in what we've seen, especially with youth crime and youth intervention, which seems to be particularly effective with Leesa Manion and her managing this office and hundreds of staff and attorney, which is certainly in line with what the County Prosecuting Attorney needs to do. Jim Ferrell, coming from the mayor of Federal Way, has talked about more of a punitive approach to this and is talking about cracking down on some of the things that we have been seeing as successful. It's interesting in how this race is shaping up and what the candidates are talking about and what they aren't talking about with them. Certainly Leesa has been leaning into her experience, the type of coalition that she's building, whether it's people who are in support of more common sense gun reform and making sure guns don't proliferate on the streets, to those who are looking to maintain accountability but make sure that we're doing the things that give folks the best chance of reducing recidivism, or people returning, or revictimizing people who are committing further crimes. Jim Ferrell seems very focused on trying to apply longer sentences, lengthier sentences, talking about a more, again, punitive approach, prosecuting more, longer sentences - that type of stuff. So with that, what do you think? What is your take on this race, Shannon? [00:44:01] Shannon Cheng: So this race is between Leesa Manion, who's the current Chief of Staff for the outgoing King County Prosecutor, Dan Satterberg - she's been in that position for quite a time. And her opponent is Jim Ferrell, who is the current mayor of Federal Way. So when I look at this race, I see - with Leesa Manion who - it's a continuation of what King County has been doing, which I would characterize as incremental reform of the criminal legal system to be more fair and equitable. I think this can be embodied in initiatives they aspire to, such as declaring racism as a public health crisis or the goal of Zero Youth Detention. So I think with Manion, you will get a continuation of the slow work that the county is doing to try to make our criminal legal system more equitable and fair. Whereas with Ferrell, I see this as a candidate who's trying to throw us back to punitive tactics that have been proven to be ineffective. He wants to be more tough-on-crime and is riding this wave of Republicans pointing to crime as being the reason not to support the Democratic candidate. I think that Ferrell has specifically spoken about being against and wanting to roll back some of the diversion programs that King County has started to try to use, especially for youth. And I also - even if you don't - if you agree on this punitive approach, I think it's also worth considering that right now the legal system is kind of at capacity. So what Ferrell is suggesting is going to put even more strain on it. The courts are already - have backlogs coming from the pandemic and the jails are full and not functioning well and not providing people humane conditions to be in there. So I just fear that that will lead to a lot more suffering for many people across our county. And I think this is a really important race to look at and think about. [00:46:12] Crystal Fincher: So Mike, what's your take on this? [00:46:14] Mike McGinn: It's interesting to see the contrast here. It's a local version of this national debate that we have now seen - that the proper response to crime is to crack down harder. And we're seeing this here as well. I worked with Dan Satterberg and he was a really interesting elected official. And honestly, to me, I may not have agreed with him on every decision - I know I didn't agree with him on every decision he made. But he was a civil servant first and foremost. He was trying to figure out what was the right path forward. He was engaged in the discussion. He led on things like Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, people returning to the community from jail - getting their records cleared and restoration of rights. So he was really, and it's interesting, he was elected as a Republican, moved the race to a nonpartisan race and then was elected as a Democrat. So he clearly was somebody who was willing to go where the evidence led and not go based on ideology. So that's the experience we've had from that office, which is, I think, what you want in a prosecutor's office. It's a pretty important position. The effect it has on people's lives is immense. I think that really says something that we see someone looking to continue that tradition. And then we see someone coming in with - if only we punished people more. How's that been working? Really? We have some information on that, which is it doesn't really work. It takes a combination of the judicial system and community systems to really try to deal with root causes of crime, to deal with recidivism, to deal with the issues here. And I think that this is a little bit of a bellwether here. Are we going to try to be a progressive place, a progressive county that adopts and looks at new approaches? Or are we going to go to a more regressive approach to this? Because, yeah, that's worked so well in solving crime over the decades. [00:48:34] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. What's your take, Bryce? [00:48:37] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I don't know how much more I have to add to this other than just the importance of this race and the importance of making sure we have somebody who's really thinking about the - not just people's emotional concerns about crime, but the actions and the strategies and the programs that have been proven to address the things that actually lower crime. We've talked on a number of different episodes throughout this year about programs that have successfully reduced recidivism. And those are programs that often get criticized by people who claim to be tough on crime. And I just think that's something to interrogate our candidates about for this position, because the county prosecutor has a lot of influence in terms of how the county addresses crime in a way that's going to impact real people in big ways. [00:49:29] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I agree. I will chime in and say that we just got a new public poll here that was just reported on, I think yesterday, showing that this race is basically statistically tied. So turnout is going to be really important. Lots of people talk about - they look at the federal races - they wonder if their vote matters. They're going, okay millions of people are voting. Why does mine make a difference? Really what makes a difference are these down-ballot races, are these local races. If you care about the issues of homelessness, justice, equity, affordability, what our community looks like, who it serves - our criminal legal system is an essential part of that equation. And we're talking about, in so many of these conversations, how we intervene and address victims. And most people who have perpetrated crimes have been victims of them. And how we intervene when people are victims, especially early, and especially when they're young, dictates how their future goes and whether they end up on the path to criminalization and poverty or a better path. So the way we intervene in that makes a difference. The way we treat and handle these cases that come through and how we address accountability depends on whether our streets are made safer, whether our tax dollars are used in a way that makes it less likely that people are going to commit crime and less likely that people are victimized or more, right? And we're seeing the impacts of the status quo of a more punitive approach. And either we choose to keep doing the same thing, and polls keep showing that no one is satisfied with the condition of things today. And so we do need to consider that when we are making these choices. And I hope you take a long, hard look at that. And most of all, get engaged and vote, make sure other people vote. And talk about these races, talk about the county attorney races, talk about the judicial races that we're going to talk about in just a moment, right? These are very important. Turnout is not where we would love it to be. It's lagging behind some previous years here locally, especially among younger people. And I know that is concerning to some. So the more that people can do to make sure that everyone can - and the most impactful thing you can do is just text those close to you, call those close to you, talk to them. Hey, coworker - hey, did you get that ballot in? What are you doing for this race? Remember, this is important. Hey, cousin, hey, brother, sister, mom - it's those connections close to you and those personal contacts that actually make it more likely for those people to vote. External organizations can try and do all the voter mobilization that they can and that work is valuable and good and should happen. But hearing from someone who you care about and who cares about you saying, hey, make sure you do this, you have any questions, you need help - is one of the best things you can do to make sure that people actually turn out to vote. So with that, we can talk about a couple of these judicial races, which are next on the ballot. Now we see the state Supreme Court races and we see Justice Mary Yu, who - you probably hear affection and admiration in my voice because I have affection and admiration for Justice Mary Yu. We also have a great interview with her from a few months back that we will post in the episode notes. Justice Barbara Madsen, also wonderful. Justice Helen Whitener, who is just - look, I'm going to just go ahead and get personal. Justice Helen Whitener is everything. I just need everyone to know that Justice Whitener is everything from - just everything. Her experience - vast, broad experience - in so many elements and areas of the law. The thoughtfulness, the lived experience, the outreach into the community - just a beautiful human being and an effective and intelligent justice. I am a fan of Justice Helen Whitener and we've done a couple interviews with Justice Whitener. And fortunately this time she isn't being challenged by anyone mediocre like she was last time, so this is an uncontested race. And when I say mediocre - I mean just got his license to practice law in order to run against someone with a resume as vast and deep as Justice Whitener's. And so now we'll talk about the contested municipal judge races in the City of Seattle between Damon Shadid, who is the incumbent in that one seat - has been endorsed by a number of Democratic organizations, received Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of organizations, and is standing on his record. And a new challenger from the City Attorney's Office, Nyjat Rose-Akins, who is endorsed by the King County Republican Party and Jenny Durkan, and is wanting to make changes to some things and talking about the record of Community Court and changes that she wants to make there. In the other race, we have judge Adam Eisenberg, who has been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified by a number of the local and ethnic bar associations, but also has received a high number of negative feedback and surveys from the King County Bar Association and concerns about management and whether women are treated fairly under his management. And then Pooja Vaddadi, who is a newcomer and a new challenger, who has been - received a number of Democratic endorsements, but also has not received any ratings from local judicial bar associations because she has chosen not to stand in front of them for ratings. Bryce, how would you characterize those races? [00:55:42] Bryce Cannatelli: Like Crystal said, we got to hear from all of these candidates in a forum. I'll start with the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins portion of it - they're running for Position 7. Damon Shadid has been a judge in this position for quite a while. And the main point of difference between the two is Nyjat Rose-Akins often talked about during the forum criticisms of Community Court and her interest in making a lot of changes to the Community Court system, whereas Judge Shadid has defended what that court has been able to do and hopes to see it continue in its current direction. As far as Pooja Vaddadi and Judge Eisenberg, that's another kind of longtime incumbent in the position - I can't remember how long he's been in that role - and a newcomer. And Pooja Vaddadi brought up concerns about the way that Judge Eisenberg has handled himself in the courtroom. You can hear her talk about that in our forum specifically at the end - is something that her campaign has been highlighting as of late, but also just the need that she claims there is in the municipal court for some changes. [00:56:52] Crystal Fincher: What's your take on those races, Shannon? [00:56:55] Shannon Cheng: So I think - so for the Judge Eisenberg and Pooja Vaddadi race - Pooja Vaddadi is a practicing public defender. And I think her experience in being in the court with somebody such as Judge Eisenberg presiding - it was a maybe not great experience for her. And so she saw a lot of injustice there and felt called to try to step up and bear witness and call out what was happening and how she has a different vision for how that court could be run. I personally appreciate that because I think judicial races are just very low information. It's really hard - as Crystal just went through, there was a long list of uncontested judges on the ballot - and I often look at those names and I have no idea who those people are. And so it has been interesting in this race to get a window into how courts work. And I know for me, it's been very educational. And I continue to aspire to learn more about how courts are run and what matters. And yeah, so for the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins - as Bryce said, I think it comes down to the vision of how Community Court will be run in the future in Seattle. Whether you want somebody from the City Attorney's Office driving the vision of how to handle low-level offenses in the city versus the path that we had been on to to try to support people in need and not further entangle them in a system that kind of - a system that can snowball on people's lives. [00:58:41] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think that's right on. And I think in these races, we are seeing a little bit of a difference. There has been a lot called out by Pooja Vaddadi's campaign. But in fairness, I think you referred to Pooja talking about how she was partly moved to run for this position based on some of the injustices she saw. But one of the issues in this race that has been brought up is that Judge Eisenberg was the recipient of the highest number of - basically highest amount of negative feedback. King County Bar Association does an anonymous poll of its member attorneys for judges and the highest percentage of attorneys returned negative responses for Judge Eisenberg - higher than all of the other judges and gave that feedback. Judge Eisenberg didn't seem to feel that that had any validity. And he talked about how he had been rated Exceptionally Well Qualified, which is the highest rating given by a number of different bar associations. And it being pretty standard that judges go before different bar associations and get interviewed and they evaluate their fitness for judicial office and provide a rating from Exceptionally Well Qualified, I think Very Well Qualified, just on there. And so he had a number of highest ratings. And Pooja Vaddadi decided not to sit in front of those. And she said it was because she felt that it was biased or tilted or they would automatically give high ratings to incumbents, but not give high ratings to people who weren't incumbents. So she didn't feel the need to sit before them, which is a bit different. A lot of first-time candidates do go before those bodies and are evaluated and come out with decent ratings. I'm trying to think if I recall first-time candidates getting Exceptionally Well Qualified - I think I recall a couple, but also some who haven't. So I don't know, there very well may be a role that incumbency plays in that, but that was an element in that race that came through. As well as prior coverage about whether Judge Eisenberg potentially gave someone a harsher sentence for exercising their right to a jury trial instead of accepting a plea deal. And that being a wrong thing - that is a right that people have to exercise. And whether someone pleads guilty to a charge on a deal or is found guilty on that charge, penalizing someone simply for choosing to go to trial is not something that should happen and is certainly frowned upon. And so there was some coverage in question about that. We can also link that in the show notes. So those are certainly interesting races. And I think Shannon summed up really well just what's at stake moving forward in the Damon Shadid and Nyjat Rose-Akins race. So now let's get into the meat of a Seattle big-time initiative - Propositions 1A and 1B, which are on the City of Seattle ballot. They are not on my ballot, but we've got ballots waving with Shannon and Bryce and Mike over here talking about this question. [01:02:10] Mike McGinn: Do you want me to take a shot at it? [01:02:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, go ahead. Take a shot at it, Mike McGinn. [01:02:16] Mike McGinn: Okay. We all know how ballots work - you get a choice between - in the primary, you normally get a whole lot of candidates to vote for and you pick one. And what this is proposing is that in the City of Seattle, whether you want a different way to vote that will give you more choices. So the first question is, and let me tell you what the two choices are. One is called approval voting. So you'd look at your ballot and you'd have multiple people on the ballot and anyone that you approved of, you'd vote for. So you could vote for one, two, three, four, to approve as many as you want. And the idea there is that you don't want to have to restrict your vote to one candidate. And I have to say there have been times when I've had multiple friends on the ballot - I just want to be able to say I voted for all of them. But there are other good reasons to want to maybe approve multiple candidates. The other style is something called ranked choice voting. So in that case, you'd rank the candidates - one, two, three, four, five. And they'd add up the votes, and whoever the lowest vote getter was would get dropped off. And so let's say - I'm standing here with Bryce and Shannon and Crystal - let's say I had ranked them Crystal first, and then Bryce, and then Shannon. If Crystal was the lowest vote getter, she'd be off the list. And my vote would now go to Bryce - my second vote would be counted. And you do this by a process of eliminating the lowest-ranked candidate until you get to a winner. And we'll probably get more into why - what are the differences between the two systems and why they're better. And there's a whole world of election nerddom, which is substantial - what is the best way to represent what the voters really want, but you're going to get to choose here. So the real question is, do you want to keep the existing system - and that's the first question on the ballot - or do you want a new system? And if you vote Yes, I want a new system, you'll also be asked - well, actually, no matter how you vote on whether you want a new system - you're then asked, which one do you like more, approval voting or ranked choice voting? So yeah, it is pretty dense and complicated. You probably want to sit down and look at this. But if I could break it down for you - if you think you want more ways to have your vote count and have more discretion in how to award it to people, you'll want to vote Yes on the initial question. And then you'll get to weigh in and decide which one of those two - approval or ranked choice voting - you like more. And that'll tee it up for people to offer their opinions on what they like more on the rest of the podcast. How was that? Did I do okay, guys, in getting the description out? [01:05:13] Crystal Fincher: You did! You did, in fact, do okay of getting the description out. And I think also just the - functionally on the ballot - what you said was really important and I just want to reiterate. So this - we're talking about - okay, there are two choices there, approval voting and ranked choice voting. But when you get your ballot, you're going to see that it is constructed in a way that's not just that simple choice. There really is an initial question and then a secondary question. The initial question - why don't you just read what's on the ballot? [01:05:47] Bryce Cannatelli: Yeah, I could do that. I can also hold it up to you, so you can see the wall of text that happens beforehand. Shannon is shaking her head on the video feed, because - Seattle voters will know it if they've opened their ballots - there's a lot of text that goes before you can actually answer the question. So please read your ballot from top to bottom to make sure that you vote for everything. But the way that it's formatted is we get an explanation of both of the individual propositions. So it says Proposition 1A, submitted by initiative petition number 134, and Proposition 1B, alternative proposed by the city council and mayor, concern allowing voters to select multiple candidates in city primary elections. Proposition 1A would allow voters in primary elections for mayor, city attorney and city council to select on the ballot as many candidates as they approve of for each office. The two candidates receiving the most votes for each office would advance to the general election consistent with state law. The city would consult with King County to include instructions on the primary ballot, such as vote for as many as you approve of for each office. As an alternative, the city council and mayor have proposed Proposition 1B, which would allow primary election voters for mayor, city attorney and